Division I athletes with play time dating as far back as 2002 could apply for up to $2,500 in stipends for each year they played if a California judge approves the settlement on a federal antitrust lawsuit filed February 2006. Though the move will cost individual schools almost nothing – the NCAA agreed to pay players $10 million from its own supplementary fund – the move will more than repay its moderate cost by bringing much-needed fairness and transparency to the division.

The four players who filed the lawsuit argued the NCAA should not restrict its athletic grants to college expenses when it could afford to distribute far more of the revenues earned from broadcast and licensing deals. At its core, this is an issue of fairness – some college athletes already receive thousands from scholarships and other grants for textbooks and housing, but they generate far more for the collegiate sports organization by playing. More of this income should return to the students who turn advertising and booster club interest into cash for athletic facilities and faculty salaries.

The new grants will also help clean up a division tarnished by periodic reports of under-the-table recruitment incentives and sham jobs given to athletes who never show up to work. Though a few extra thousand dollars will by no means rid the division of these kickbacks, it will do much to level the playing field between colleges with big athletic budgets and those unable to pay athletes out of their own funds. At BU, many athletes hold legitimate work-study jobs that pay well so they can devote as much time to practice as possible. By removing the need for this extra source of income, the grants will also free up those jobs vacated by athletes to other students looking for an extra source of income.

Colleges should share the wealth of these grants beyond student-athletes to include the band players and other athletic department employees who play an integral part in turning the profits athletic events generate. This decision will be left up to individual schools, however – the NCAA plays no part in deciding how schools allocate these funds. The BU Athletics Department should look into redistributing some of the savings it will gain from players’ grants to pay band members, dancers and other rally crew members for the time and expense they incur following athletes on the road.

Though $10 million amounts to little when distributed among hundreds of Division I colleges, BU will still see some of this windfall and should spend it wisely. The Athletics Department should target athletes who genuinely need extra financial aid instead of using it purely for recruitment. If some athletes qualify for the grants but do not need more financial aid, the department should consider using the grant anyway while using an equal amount of its own budget to upgrade band facilities and other needy programs.