⚖️ Ethics · Intermediate · Policy resolution
Resolved: College athletes should be classified as employees of their universities.
College athletes can now earn money from endorsements, and schools can share revenue with them. Should they go further and be treated as employees, with wages and the right to bargain?
Background
For decades the NCAA barred college athletes from being paid beyond scholarships. Since 2021, athletes have been allowed to earn money from their name, image and likeness (NIL) through endorsements and sponsorships. In June 2025 a federal judge approved the settlement in House v. NCAA, which provides about $2.8 billion in back damages to former athletes and lets schools share athletic revenue directly with players, up to a cap of $20.5 million per school in 2025–26, rising each year. It also replaced scholarship limits with roster limits, which cost some walk-on and partial-scholarship athletes their spots. [1]
The settlement did not decide whether athletes are employees, which would bring wages, workplace protections, taxes and possibly union bargaining. Supporters of employee status say athletes work long hours generating billions; opponents worry it would end the student-athlete model, force cuts to sports that don’t earn money, and create problems under Title IX, the law requiring equal opportunity for women in school sports. [1]
Would employee status force schools to cut sports?
- Opponents expect schools to cut sports that don’t earn money if they must pay wages and benefits to all athletes.
- Supporters say most money flows in football and basketball, and schools have choices about coaches’ salaries and facilities.
Key terms
- NIL
- Name, image and likeness: athletes’ right to earn money from endorsements and appearances.
- Revenue sharing
- Schools paying part of their athletic revenue directly to athletes, as allowed under the House settlement.
- Title IX
- The 1972 federal law banning sex discrimination in education programs, including athletics.
- Collective bargaining
- Negotiation between employers and a union representing employees.
Both sides at their strongest
Each argument is written the way its best advocates would make it, followed by the strongest answer from the other side. Use them to build your case and to prepare for the other one.
Affirmative
Athletes who do the work that brings in billions should have the rights and pay of employees.
A1 Athletes perform work that generates large revenue.
Why Long practice hours, travel and games produce media and ticket revenue for schools; people doing that work should be treated as workers.
Evidence Athletic department revenue data; time-demand surveys of athletes; the size of the House settlement.
Best answer The negative answers that most college sports lose money, and athletes are students first.
A2 Employee status brings protections.
Why Employees get workplace safety rules, injury coverage and the right to bargain; athletes with serious injuries can be left with little support.
Evidence Labor law protections; cases of athletes’ long-term injuries and medical costs.
Best answer The negative replies that schools can provide health coverage and protections without employee status.
A3 Revenue sharing alone leaves athletes without a voice.
Why Schools and conferences set the terms of revenue sharing; only collective bargaining gives athletes a say in rules, pay and schedules.
Evidence Terms of the House settlement set without an athletes’ union; examples from professional leagues.
Best answer The negative argues that bargaining across hundreds of schools would be unworkable and costly.
A4 The old amateur model treated athletes unfairly.
Why Coaches and administrators earned millions while athletes couldn’t be paid, which courts found violated antitrust law.
Evidence The Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston; the House settlement’s back damages.
Best answer The negative answers that NIL and revenue sharing already fix this without turning students into employees.
Negative
Athletes should be paid fairly, but as student-athletes, not employees.
N1 Employee status could lead schools to cut sports.
Why Most college teams don’t make money; adding wages, benefits and taxes may push schools to cut sports such as swimming, wrestling and track.
Evidence Athletic department budgets; roster cuts that followed the House settlement.
Best answer The affirmative answers that schools could reduce spending on coaches’ salaries and facilities instead.
N2 It creates conflicts with Title IX.
Why If most pay goes to football and men’s basketball players, schools may face claims that they’re failing to provide equal opportunity to women athletes.
Evidence Title IX challenges filed against the House settlement by women athletes.
Best answer The affirmative replies that Title IX can be applied to pay just as it is to scholarships.
N3 Athletes are students first.
Why College sports exist within education; making athletes employees could subordinate classes to work demands.
Evidence Graduation data for athletes; NCAA academic requirements.
Best answer The affirmative argues that work demands already dominate for many athletes, so recognizing reality is more honest.
N4 New pay systems already address fairness.
Why NIL deals and revenue sharing put money in athletes’ hands without the legal complications of employment.
Evidence The House settlement’s revenue-sharing cap; NIL earnings data.
Best answer The affirmative replies that these leave athletes without protections or bargaining rights.
Strawman or steelman?
A strawman is a weak copy of the other side’s view, easy to knock down and unfair to the people who hold it. A steelman is that view at its strongest. Answer the steelman, and you’ve answered the real argument. (More on steelmanning.)
Affirmative
Strawman “They want to turn college sports into the NFL.”
Why it’s unfair Supporters want rights and protections for athletes, not necessarily professional leagues.
Steelman Athletes do work that generates billions; employee status would give them pay, injury protections and a voice through bargaining.
Negative
Strawman “They don’t think athletes deserve anything.”
Why it’s unfair Most opponents support NIL and revenue sharing.
Steelman Athletes should be paid through NIL and revenue sharing, but employee status could cut sports, create Title IX conflicts and undermine the student part of student-athlete.
Weak arguments to avoid
Affirmative
- “Every college athlete brings in millions.” Most programs and athletes don’t generate large revenue.
Negative
- “A scholarship is payment enough.” Courts and the House settlement have already moved past this; argue about employment specifically.
Questions for cross-examination
Ask the Affirmative
- How many college sports earn more than they cost?
- What happens to women’s sports under your plan?
- Would athletes pay income tax on scholarships?
Ask the Negative
- Who decided the terms of revenue sharing?
- Who pays for a career-ending injury now?
- What did the Supreme Court decide in Alston?
Reading on both sides
Read at least one source from each side before you debate. Look up each source’s author and publisher too: who wrote it is part of the evidence.
Background and overviews
- House v. NCAA settlement to pay college athletes: all your questions answered, Front Office Sports (2025-06-11)
- House v. NCAA Landmark Settlement Approved: Key Takeaways, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney (2025)
Both sides in one place
Sources for the background
- House v. NCAA settlement to pay college athletes: all your questions answered (Amanda Christovich), Front Office Sports (2025-06-11). Accessed 2026-10-25.
Teddy Rook Book doesn’t take a side on this resolution. Updated 2026-10-25.