We are watching in real-time the death march of amateurism on university campuses. Welcome to the ever-changing world of play-for-pay in college sports; it is about to officially turn professional.
Today, many prospective college athletes first ask these two questions: “How much money will you pay me and how much time will I play?” Gone are the days when they inquired about the strength of academic programs. If words matter and carry meaning then in today’s collegiate sports world, the word “student-athlete” is a lie, misleading and a myth.
People often dismiss just how important words are to our public perceptions and discussions. But shifts in vocabulary can change the public narrative. Consider the disingenuous choice of words, as colleges take part in the mounting frenzy of “March Madness,” the national college basketball championship. Throughout the tournament, announcers and commentators careful enough to heed the insistence of the National Collegiate Athletic Association speciously refer to the players as “student-athletes.”
Right here in Colorado, House Bill 1041 — soon to be signed into law by Gov. Jared Polis — will give the University of Colorado the green light to pay athletes. It allows an institution of higher education or athletic association in our state to directly compensate athletes. Although not finalized, CU is expected to have $20.5 million to attract and retain players, beginning in the 2025-26 academic year. Unfortunately, the bill includes an exemption from the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). Universities need sunshine on all financial agreements concerning who and how all monies are distributed.
Just how did we get here?
The term “student-athlete” has been a cornerstone of college sports for decades, conjuring images of young individuals balancing the rigors of academic life with the demands of a multi-billion-dollar industry. This term has come under scrutiny for being increasingly disingenuous and outdated. The illusion of “student-athlete” was popularized in the 1950s and 1960s. The catalyst for this terminology was a series of legal battles concerning workers’ compensation for injured athletes. The NCAA aimed to protect institutions from having to pay athletes as employees, which would have included providing benefits like workers’ compensation, health insurance and salaries.
The seminal legal case in this context was that of Ray Dennison, right here in Colorado. Dennison, a college football player at Fort Lewis A&M (now Fort Lewis College), died from a head injury sustained during a game in 1955. His widow applied for workers’ compensation benefits, arguing that her husband was an employee of the college. However, in 1957 the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against her, with the NCAA’s legal stance asserting that Dennison was a “student-athlete” and not an employee. This case underscored the NCAA’s insistence on defining college athletes as primarily students, emphasizing their academic pursuits over their athletic contributions.
This historical context highlights the self-serving nature of the term’s creation. Rather than reflecting the dual commitment to academics and athletics, the word “student-athlete” was designed to protect the financial interests of universities and maintain the amateur status of college sports. Over the years, this term has become ingrained in the fabric of college athletics, perpetuating a narrative that often belies the reality faced by athletes.
By promoting the fiction of the “student-athlete,” the NCAA and colleges have tried to continually reinforce the idea that athletes are primarily students who participate in sports as an extension of their educational experience. This definition helped colleges and universities avoid their legal and financial responsibilities. The NCAA maintained that scholarships and stipends were not compensation for athletic performance, but rather support for students’ educational endeavors.
College athletics has changed dramatically since the term “student-athlete” was coined. Today, college sports, particularly in high-profile sports such as football and basketball, are major revenue generators for universities. The commercialization of college sports has led to increased pressure on athletes to perform at elite levels, often at the expense of their academic pursuits. Now many players are worth, according to On3 Sports, more than $1 million. Arch Manning the University of Texas quarterback, currently leads the pack with an estimated Name Image and Likeness (NIL) worth over $6.5 million. It has been estimated that major college basketball programs need to spend over $1 million annually just to attract a big-name point guard.
Athletic commitments often take precedence over academic responsibilities, with athletes dedicating significant amounts of time to training, travel and competition. In many cases, the demands placed on athletes are more than that of professional athletes. This shift has blurred the lines between amateur and professional status, challenging the notion that these individuals are “students first.”
By moving away from the term “student-athlete,” universities can help shift the narrative to better reflect the realities faced by players. Words such as “employee,” “semi-professional” or “university athlete” more accurately capture the dual commitments and pressures faced by these individuals. The evolution of college athletics suggests “student-athlete” will continue to change, reflecting broader societal changes in how we view education, sports and compensation. It is past time to pull conferences, NCAA and college presidents back into reality and scrap the term “student-athlete.”
Jim Martin is a past adjunct sports law professor and former regent for the University of Colorado. He can be reached at jimmartinesq@gmail.com.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.