Quakers chime in on college pay-for-play debate

It's no secret that athletic programs at big-time sports schools rake in a ton of money and coaches and athletic directors at those schools are often the benefactors. In recent months and years, the debate about whether college athletes should be paid continues to be at the forefront of discussions about college sports.

Some argue that athletes are paid through scholarships and other benefits, like team apparel and the use of facilities. Others, however, believe athletes deserve their fair share of the profits. As this New York Times article from Dec. 30 points out, the combined salary of the top 15 highest-paid college football coaches is $53.4 million, while the players make nothing.

Former Penn basketball player Stephen Danley and Wharton professor Ken Shropshire took to the airwaves yesterday to share their feelings about this topic on Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane. Danley played from 2003-2007 and is a Marshall Scholar at the University of Oxford. Shropshire is the director of the Wharton Sports Business Initiative.

Danley believes that student athletes already are paid, though he points out that he did turn down scholarship offers at smaller programs to play at Penn. Shropshire says that even if you agree that players should be compensated, the implementation of any sort of program to do so would be extremely difficult to work out.

It's an interesting discussion, but if an hour of radio doesn't interest you, Danley also wrote an article for the New York Times around March Madness last year on the same topic. He was one of seven writers to participate in the discussion, including Basketball Hall of Famer Bill Walton.

Journalists, current and former players, and fans alike have a lot of opinions about this issue. Do you think college athletes deserve to be paid?