Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

My African American pop culture class had just wrapped up for the semester. After weeks of watching films, student discussion filled the room.

We reflected on “Coach Carter” and “Love & Basketball,” two films depicting the lives of student-athletes. The conversation shifted to the realities of student-athlete life and the pressures athletes endure.

One issue students repeatedly raised was athlete compensation.

While most people in the room supported compensating athletes, many expressed concern over where universities invest their resources. Student-athletes have become the visible symbol of a broader conversation surrounding Syracuse University’s budgeting priorities.

One of the biggest misconceptions about athlete compensation is the assumption that tuition dollars directly pay athletes. The university’s NIL ecosystem relies on third-party fundraising efforts, according to Syracuse Athletics’ announcement of its partnership with One Orange Alliance.

These assumptions shape how frustration is directed. When students don’t understand where resources originate, compensation can appear far simpler than it actually is.

According to SU’s Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Financial Report, the university operated on an annual budget of nearly $2 billion, reflecting investments across academics, research, student support, facilities and other institutional operations.

Still, athletics may not attract criticism solely because of misunderstandings about funding, but rather because it remains one of SU’s most visible investments.

Former SU volleyball player Sydnie Waller, who was involved in athletic leadership organizations like the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, believes visibility can shift frustration toward athletes rather than the systems surrounding them.

“At the end of the day, their issue is with the university and what the university chooses to have money put into,” Waller said.

Students are frustrated with what athletics symbolize.

SU junior Aaron Young, a computer engineering major, suggested that athletics occupy a unique position within SU’s public image. While concerns surrounding housing, dining and other necessities exist, he argues universities rely on athletics as one of their most visible representations.

“This is a private institution that has to sell an image in order to attain more traction and funding for its endeavors, and a major part of that is capitalizing off of its sports endeavors,” Young said.

This visibility creates selective perception.

Waller noted that students often see game-day experiences, social media posts and athletic facilities, but rarely the overlooked realities of athlete life.

She highlighted long schedules, limited sleep and the pressure of balancing performance with academics. While athletes may receive public attention and opportunity, Waller said this can obscure the difficulties student-athletes face.

“Students just see, ‘Oh well, you have NIL money, so you’re fine,’” Waller said.

But it’s important to recognize that visibility and institutional importance aren’t synonymous. Some of SU’s most significant investments operate far from game-day crowds and athletic facilities.

Visibility often becomes a substitute for accountability. Students criticize what they can see instead of questioning the budgeting structures they cannot. Most students can point to the JMA Wireless Dome. Few could identify the office that kept them enrolled.

Amy Horan Messersmith, a Higher Education Opportunity Program academic counselor and longtime member of the Advisor Practitioner’s Forum planning committee, emphasized the importance of student support systems.

“We are the front lines of student support and retention,” Messersmith said. “I’m grateful that the university values advising and student-facing roles on campus and hope that it continues to make these positions a priority.”

Advisors, counselors and retention specialists often become the first people students encounter when navigating academic, financial or personal challenges.

While athletics often occupies the public eye, many of the systems students rely on to succeed daily function in quieter spaces.

These quieter systems aren’t abstract to me. During my time at SU, advisors, professors and student support staff became some of the most influential people in my college experience. Their guidance helped me navigate academic setbacks, find opportunities to grow and ultimately remain at the university. Christina Stepien, Director of Bursar Operations, allowed me to attend classes despite an outstanding balance. Craig Tucker, HEOP director, is why I could still attend SU while facing financial challenges during my freshman year. Had my SU journey ended there, I wouldn’t have joined the Our Time Has Come program or had the space to write to take creative risks.

Those relationships rarely make headlines, but they often have a greater impact on student success than the programs receiving the most attention.

My experience isn’t unique. According to SU’s website, more than 81% of students receive financial aid, with the university providing $571 million in financial support each year. That investment reflects the invisible systems keeping students enrolled and allowing them to earn their degrees.

Questions surrounding university priorities extend beyond athletics. SU recently discussed academic investment and institutional priorities through its academic portfolio review process, examining how resources are allocated across programs based on long-term student needs.

These discussions show that debates surrounding institutional priorities are rarely limited to athletics alone; they often reflect larger questions about where universities believe their greatest impact exists.

Universities make investments that students experience differently.

While projects such as housing expansion or athletic facilities often attract attention, other investments — including advising, retention efforts and support systems — are often hidden.

The issue isn’t whether athletes deserve compensation. I agreed that they do, and so did students in my class. The larger question is whether visibility now carries greater weight than actual impact.

Student-athletes may simply be carrying the burden of a larger institutional conversation. It’s up to students to make our voices heard in these discussions.

We must challenge the systems making decisions rather than the people most visible within them. Athletes may be the faces students recognize, but faces and systems don’t equate to one another. Universities reveal what matters to them through their budgets. Students reveal what matters most to them through the questions we continue to ask.

Trayson Blain is a senior majoring in psychology. He can be reached at tblain@syr.edu.

Published on July 12, 2026 at 9:35 pm