College athletics are a prominent part of the American higher education system, with universities running teams that attract significant nationwide attention and revenue. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which oversees most college sports, has maintained that college athletes are “student-athletes,” not employees, and emphasizes the educational purpose of college athletics. For their participation, many college athletes receive scholarships that cover most costs, including tuition, housing, and other expenses. That said, top college sports programs generate billions of dollars through television contracts, ticket sales, and sponsorships. In recent years, some rules have evolved to allow athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). At the same time, an increasing number of lawsuits and legal disputes have escalated the debate over what compensation for college athletes should look like.

Supporters of treating college athletes as employees argue that the relationship of athlete to college resembles that of an employee to an employer, pointing to the scale and structure of modern college sports. Athletes in major programs often dedicate dozens of hours each week to various athletic responsibilities, taking up time that would otherwise be spent on other academic or professional opportunities. Meanwhile, universities, coaches, and media companies generate substantial revenue from these programs. Proponents argue that if athletes are essentially performing labor that generates income for their schools, they should receive compensation and workplace protections similar to standard employees, including wages, healthcare, and more.

Opponents of treating college athletes as employees argue that inter-collegiate athletics are a part of the educational experience rather than a form of employment. They state that scholarships provide significant financial support to students that would otherwise have to cover schooling costs themselves. Critics also point out that compensating student-athletes as employees would significantly increase costs for universities, potentially leading schools to cut smaller athletic programs—including Division III programs—that do not generate revenue. They also argue that the new rules around NIL compensation and other opportunities allow athletes to benefit financially while maintaining the student-centered mission of college sports.

Determining how college athletes should be classified remains a key question in the evolving landscape of college sports, especially in recent years. Ultimately, this debate centers on the relationship between universities and college athletes and how it should be understood and regulated.