Grueling practice. High-stakes games. 40-plus hour weeks. But no pay. This leaves little doubt about the “amateur” quality that the NCAA, fans, and college administrators insist college athletes have. Their efforts lead to almost $11 billion in annual revenue for the college athletics industry—like engineers who make a successful product, but do not receive any compensation for their work. Athletes are the main reason the revenue comes in: It is their work ethic, determination, and talent that leads their teams to victory.

Arguments for paying athletes have traditionally focused on male football and basketball teams, and it is essential that those players receive a salary. The time they spend practicing compromises their academics; graduating debt free with a paper does not equate to a job post-graduation. Even scholarships can be revoked if a player is injured or decides to stop playing. Players can also get lifelong injuries that colleges may do nothing to compensate for.

Some argue Division I players receive a full scholarship plus access to top facilities and resources to make them superstars. But what percentage of college athletes go on to the pros? The NBA Draft only takes 60 players a year, and there are thousands of college players who do not have the opportunity to participate.

College athletics departments often weep about the lack of money they have to pay their players, generally because college football and basketball coaches have huge paychecks. In 39 states, the highest paid public employee is either a college football or basketball coach. These coaches earn more than governors and university presidents. Overall, the college football coaches at the top 32 football schools in the country are paid a greater proportion of their college football programs' revenue than NFL coaches are paid of their franchises'.

Colleges often argue that revenue comes in because coaches do an effective job recruiting top athletes, and that coaches serve as general managers and support systems for their players (NFL coaches do not). But the argument comes back to the athletes: They are the ones fans see on the field, not NCAA officials or college coaches.

If the revenues generated by each team are taken out of the argument, and only due compensation is considered, then all college athletes should be paid proportional to the amount of time and effort they put into the game.

Of course, this raises some difficult questions. For one thing, there are discrepancies in revenue generated and viewership between men’s and women’s sports. Over 28 million viewers tuned into watch the 2015 men’s NCAA Division I championship game, compared to 3.1 million who tuned in for the women’s championship. There's no doubt that women work just as much as men do, but because of the popularity of men’s sports, they do not experience the same success or popularity, and thus do not generate as much revenue. Where would the money to compensate them come from? What about Division II and III teams? Or any sport other than men’s basketball and football, where most proponents of paying college athletes focus their attention?

Then there is the issue of understanding athletics in the context of an extracurricular commitment. Conceivably, a recruited athlete can drop off the team, and athletes do, to an extent, understand what they are getting into when they sign up to play sports at a college. If we extend compensation beyond revenue, why not keep going for the violist who spends 40 hours a week practicing and performing, or the student who spends 40 hours volunteering, rather than the athlete who spends 40 hours on the field?

Spreading the revenue to other extracurriculars is a long shot, something that may never be achieved. But because of all the money that goes into sports, paying varsity athletes who put in significant time and effort should be a serious consideration for college athletic departments.

Shahrukh H. Khan ’17, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Mather House.