Debate Persists Over Pay for NCAA Athletes

Remember when star point guard Shabazz Napier of the University of Connecticut said he was hungry?

Not hungry to play. Hungry for food. Literally.

UConn had reached the 2014 NCAA men’s Final Four, and food was the hottest topic that weekend. Ah, the drama of March Madness.

Napier told the sports media, “We do have hungry nights that we don’t have enough money to get food in. Sometimes money is needed. I don’t think you should stretch it out to hundreds of thousands of dollars for playing, because a lot of times guys don’t know how to handle themselves with money. I feel like a student-athlete. Sometimes, there’s hungry nights where I’m not able to eat, but I still gotta play up to my capabilities.”

Napier’s story prompted the embarrassed NCAA to declare quickly that its student athletes suddenly were granted unlimited access to food and snacks.

Some say that, if major college athletes are being paid their worth in salaries, they could buy the dinners of their choosing.

Others say that basketball and football are key revenue-producing sports for major colleges, but paying players would be a shortsighted boondoggle.