From student-athletes to employee-athletes: why a ‘pay for play’ model of college sports would not necessarily make educational scholarships taxable
Posted by Social Science Research Network
From student-athletes to employee-athletes: why a ‘pay for play’ model of college sports would not necessarily make educational scholarships taxable
By Marc Edelman (City University of New York)
Abstract: In recent years, numerous commentators have called for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) to relax its rules prohibiting athlete pay. This movement to allow athletes to share in the revenues of college sports arises from the belief that college athletes sacrifice too much time, personal autonomy, and physical health to justify their lack of pay. It further criticizes the NCAA’s “no pay” rules for keeping the revenues derived from college sports “in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches.”
Nevertheless, opponents of “pay for play” cite to numerous problems that they believe will emerge from lifting the NCAA’s “no pay” rules. Among these problems, they argue that granting college athletes the legal status of “employees” would convert the athletes’ tax-exempt scholarships into taxable income – a result that may offset any economic benefits of “pay for play.” Their argument, however, is not necessarily accurate.
This article explains why a “pay for play” model of college sports would not necessarily require college athletes to pay taxes on their educational scholarships. Part I of this article discusses the economic and legal landscape of big-time college sports, and introduces the fallacious legal argument that “pay for play” would saddle college athletes with substantial tax liability related to their educational scholarships. Part II provides a brief primer on the U.S. tax code – exploring sections of the code that may allow for paid college athletes to enjoy a tax-free education. Finally, Part III explores how, with proper tax planning, colleges may provide their athletes with bona fide employment contracts that do not likely risk the tax-exempt status of athletes’ college scholarships.
Featured News
Microsoft Demands FTC Investigation into Alleged Antitrust Probe Leak
Dec 3, 2024 by
CPI
American Express Must Face Class Action Lawsuit, US Judge Rules
Dec 3, 2024 by
CPI
Ted Cruz Seeks Probe into European Influence on US AI Laws
Dec 3, 2024 by
CPI
Microsoft Faces £1.2 Billion Lawsuit in UK Over Cloud Software Licensing Practices
Dec 3, 2024 by
CPI
Bimbo Seeks $2B in Damages from Maple Leaf Foods in Canada Bread Price-Fixing Case
Dec 3, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Moats & Entrenchment
Nov 29, 2024 by
CPI
Assessing the Potential for Antitrust Moats and Trenches in the Generative AI Industry
Nov 29, 2024 by
Allison Holt, Sushrut Jain & Ashley Zhou
How SEP Hold-up Can Lead to Entrenchment
Nov 29, 2024 by
Jay Jurata, Elena Kamenir & Christie Boyden
The Role of Moats in Unlocking Economic Growth
Nov 29, 2024 by
CPI
Overcoming Moats and Entrenchment: Disruptive Innovation in Generative AI May Be More Successful than Regulation
Nov 29, 2024 by
Simon Chisholm & Charlie Whitehead