Should athletes be required to attend university before going pro to reduce risk if sport doesn’t work out?
Yes
The uncomfortable reality is that the vast majority of young athletes never become long-term professionals. In football academies, only a small percentage of youth players secure sustained top-flight careers. In U.S. college basketball, roughly 1–2% of NCAA players make it to the NBA. The odds are even lower for long careers.
University offers:
-
Education as a fallback
-
Time for physical and emotional maturity
-
Structured development outside pure sporting pressure
The U.S. college system has historically functioned as a semi-professional bridge — players like Tim Duncan and Steph Curry benefited from multi-year collegiate development before entering the NBA more prepared physically and mentally.
There’s also injury risk. One ACL tear at 18 can derail a career. A degree provides insulation against that volatility.
From this perspective, mandatory university attendance acts as a safeguard against unrealistic early specialisation.
No
Mandating university assumes it is the best or only safety net, which isn’t necessarily true. In global football, elite development happens in professional academies, not universities. Forcing players to delay entry could reduce their competitive window in sports where peak performance often occurs in their early to mid-20s.
There’s also a rights issue. If an athlete is good enough to earn a professional contract at 18, restricting that opportunity limits earning potential in what is already a short career.
Instead of mandating universities, leagues could:
-
Guarantee post-career education funding
-
Require financial literacy programs
-
Provide pension protections
-
Offer injury insurance and transition services
The NBA’s “one-and-done” rule has been widely debated for restricting player freedom rather than protecting welfare.
The core issue may not be education, but career support systems.
