One of the biggest debates among college athletics is whether or not college athletes should be paid for playing and representing their school. College players argue that they should at least get a little bit of pay. Even though people argue back and forth on this topic they don’t see the fact that college athletes bring in more money for the school than any other thing that the school offers. The sport bringing in the most money would be football, and then the second most is men’s basketball. College athletes are at college to learn and get an education and play a sport if they choose to do so not to get paid for playing their sport.
I personally believe that college players should not be paid. I think this because it is their choice to play the sport and go to the school and represent them. But in a way athletes on a full ride scholarship are pretty much being paid, because they get free education, free living, free training, free weight lifting facilities, and free food to help them in their sport, and once they get out of college they will be debt free and they have a degree that will help them get a well-paying job. The only way I could see college athletes being paid is if they were paid like a job, because when their sport is in season, they don’t have time for anything else. They could get paid $10 or $12 an hour, football players are at practice for 40 hours or more a week. Players during season do not have enough time to do homework plus work and make some kind of money. But for players on full rides they don’t have to worry about food or anything, but the players on small scholarships don’t have the luxury like the players on full rides. But I strongly think that no matter the athlete no matter the skill or talent they should not be paid for doing something that they enjoy doing and playing because either way they get paid it may not be straight up money but in some way or form they do.
There are two sides to this argument however. Some good reasons and bad reasons why they should be paid. One reason some people say it would be a good idea is that they could support their families, because some players growing up didn’t have very much and they would be able to send money back home (huffpost). Players would also stay longer so they could pursue an education, and it would also be a plus for fans cause they could watch their favorite players get better through the years (huffpost). Some down sides to players getting paid are that they would be financial irresponsible they would blow their money on things they don’t need (huffpost). And how would the people paying the athletes determine how much they would be paid, but would a top talent player receive more than just an average player (huffpost)? That’s a question often asked because no one knows how much they would pay them (huffpost). That and if one player is paid more it may cause trouble between the players. Also if players were paid they would have no incentive to go to class it would just give them more of a reason to go out and do things rather than going to class (huffpost). Also players getting paid would give the pro mindset and their only motive would be money, and they would lose interest in their sport and they wouldn’t try as hard to maintain a spot on the team if they knew no matter how they played they would still get paid.
In other instances people say that playing sports is kind of like a job. There are a number of reasons why people believe college athletes should be paid. For instance, serious college athletes spend more time practicing their sports and playing the game as most people spend at work each week. In other words, being a college athlete is the equivalent of a full time job. Speaking of jobs, since college athletes are spending so much time on the field or court and in the classroom, they don’t have the time to actually work, so many of them have a difficult time making ends meet (Dave Anderson). Also schools couldn’t afford to pay athletes, because when they do new additions to their school it costs a lot of money, though it is true that there is a lot of money coming into some college athletic program, there is just as much money going out, and in most cases, these programs are working at a loss (Dave Anderson).
Take Auburn University, for instance. In 2015, the school debuted their newest addition, an almost 11,000 square feet, and high-definition screen in the stadium. The glow from this screen can be seen up to 30 miles away, and it came to the university at a cost of $13.9 million (Dave Anderson). Now, people who believe college athletes should be paid see this cost and immediately say, if Auburn can spend this much on a screen, they certainly can spend money on paying their athletes. On the surface, this seems like a valid statement. However, what these people do not realize is that the Auburn athletic department posted a $17 million deficit in 2014 and this screen was the equivalent of a ‘Hail Mary’ pass to try to bring more money into the program (Dave Anderson). People argue saying they should play the sport for nothing but the love of the game. College athletes should recognize that the opportunity they have to play in college is something that millions of people dream of and never achieve. Playing in college should be done for the love of the game, after all, that’s what it is…a game. Most college athletes truly love their chosen sport, and don’t want it to ever turn into a job or chore. When it does, the love that they have for the fame is lost (Dave Anderson). When the topic of paying college athletes comes up, there are two trains of thought. First, some people believe that these people should all be paid based on an open market system. This would allow supply and demand to come into play, and a school would be able to pay an individual player based on the revenue that comes in due to their talents. The payment would vary depending on the local market and the deal that each athlete has with the school. However, the questions arise of how the value of a player will be determined and what happens if an athlete is “hired” at a small rate of pay, and then vastly improves over the season. What if a school pays a player a high wage, and they end up getting hurt? This is another major argument, and if they got hurt would they still get paid even though they aren’t able to play anymore (Dave Anderson). So if a player got better throughout their career and they were getting paid they would expect to get paid even more than what they were getting paid, but if the player got injured they would expect to keep getting paid for the sport. Also players are there to play the sport and represent their school they are not there to get paid like pro players, and a lot of schools do new additions to their school and athletic facilities.
If players got paid for playing it would start a play for pay kind of college athletics. A full athletic scholarship (a “grant-in-aid”) at an NCAA Division I university is about $65,000 if you enroll at a college with high tuition. This includes such private colleges as Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, University of Southern California, Syracuse, and Vanderbilt. The scholarship is $45,000 for tuition and $20,000 for room, board and books. At state universities, the scholarship would be lower if you were an “in state” student—because tuition would be about $13,000. But if Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh recruits nationwide and wants a high school player from California or Texas, the University of Michigan out-of-state tuition bumps up to about the same as that charged by the private colleges (time).
Also if college players got paid smaller schools would be at a disadvantage to larger schools, because small schools don’t have as much money as larger schools. The bigger conferences make way more money than the smaller conferences through their huge TV deals (Alvin Grier). So it would be unfair for smaller schools not to be able to pay as much as bigger schools if they were trying to get a big time recruit for their team. So that means if the school paid one sport they would have to pay all the sports including the ones that aren’t as big of a deal like men’s football and basketball (Alvin Grier). In some way players will get some kind of money. In my opinion, increasing scholarship amounts to cover living expenses may keep some of the kids from accepting money, but it’s not going to keep them all from doing it I don’t think kids getting an extra $5,000 or so from their Universities wouldn’t keep the agents, boosters, etc., from offering those cash and benefits (Alvin Grier).
College players get everything they need when they get an athletic scholarship. College sports are not meant to be based on paying athletes. According to the National Collegiate Athletic Association, student-athletes already get plenty of gratuities. They get gear, meal plans, facilities, travel, room and board and even textbooks in some cases. Although some receive partial scholarships, they still receive exceedingly more aid than the average student gets from the university, and College sports should not be centered on money. Athletes should focus on their passion for whatever sport they play and be grateful that they can receive the aid they do for getting an education (Word Press). Paying athletes would also start bidding wars between schools trying to get top recruits. Paying athletes would lead to bidding wars that would ruin the purpose of college sports. If universities paid college athletes, the disparity between large and small universities would be even bigger. Larger schools with more revenue would essentially be able to buy out the best players for their teams, putting smaller universities at a greater disadvantage (Word Press). College players try to argue that they need money and a job but they don’t have the time for it, but their schooling is paid for. Some athletes argue that they should get paid for playing the sport to compensate for the fact that it’s impossible for them — time-wise — to get a job. This is true, but they can always get a job in the off season if they need it. But, with their education paid for, what more is needed? (Word Press). The only other thing they need would be food but depending what sport the player is playing they get put on a meal plan to help them with their success in their sport and position. When players argue and argue about saying it’s a job it is not though. Without a doubt, athletes dedicate copious amounts of time practicing and training to the point where it seems like a job; but, it’s not. They’re simply being rewarded for doing something that they love in a different form. It’s almost as if their “paychecks” are being compiled into one big paycheck that takes care of their tuition, while they’re being prepared and conditioned to possibly become professional athletes (Word Press).
So college athletes should not be paid. I think this because if they were paid they would take on a pro player mindset, and players that would get paid more than others would cause problems because if a player was paid less they would argue that they should get paid more or the same as the player they are in a conflict with. Also if they got paid it would cause conflicts between other schools trying to get top recruits saying that they would pay more than another school, so smaller schools would be at a disadvantage because they do not have as much money as bigger schools.
Lombardo, Crystal. “12 Primary Pros and Cons of Paying College Athletes.” Green Garage, 19 Aug. 2015, greengarageblog.org/12-primary-pros-and-cons-of-paying-college-athletes. This website is about the pros and cons of college athletes getting paid. The author wrote this article for people trying to see the pros and cons of athletes getting paid. I feel that this source is reliable because it gives positives and negatives of college athletes getting paid. This source tells why or how paying athletes would help, and it tells the bad ways it could affect athletes.
“Should College Athletes Be Paid?” The Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism, 9 May 2013, povichcenter.org/should-college-athletes-be-paid-should-there-be-an-age-restriction-for-pros/. This website is about the debate if college athletes should be paid. The author wrote this to give both sides one saying they should and if they should not. I think this is a credible source because the author seems to know what he is talking about. This source starts off talking about money. It talks about how the NCAA makes billions of dollars.
“Why College Athletes Deserve To Be Paid.” Top Universities, 19 Sept. 2017, www.topuniversities.com/where-to-study/north-america/united-states/why-college-athletes-deserve-be-paid. This website is about why college athletes should be paid. The author wrote this for people trying to see why they should be paid. I am confident this is a credible source because the author seems to know what hes talking about. The author explains how college is getting more and more expensive.
Demby, Gene, and Maria Paz Gutierrez. “Why Shouldn’t We Pay Student-Athletes?” NPR, NPR, 23 Mar. 2018, www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/03/23/596132113/why-shouldnt-we-pay-student-athletes. This website is about why should we pay student athletes. The author wrote this source for people trying to find why we should or shouldn’t pay college athletes. I am confident that this is a credible source because the author seems to know a lot about the topic. The author talks about a court case and seems to know a lot about it.
Sallee, Barrett. “Want to Pay College Athletes? Start with Allowing Legitimate Endorsement Deals.” CBSSports.com, CBS Sports, 5 Mar. 2018, www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/want-to-pay-college-athletes-start-with-allowing-legitimate-endorsement-deals/. This website is about if college players should be paid. the author wrote this source for people looking for more information on if college athletes should be paid. I am confident that this is a credible source because it is a sports page and they know a lot about college athletics. The author uses good examples and details about certain topics. Also the author uses reason why they should not be paid.
“Should Athletes Be Paid for Name and Image?” Inside Higher Ed, Inside Higher Ed, www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/02/sports-officials-economists-debate-payments-college-athletes-name-image-and-likeness. This website is about should college athletes be paid for their name and image. The author wrote this source for people trying to get a better look on this topic. I am confident that this is a credible source because the author seems to know alot about this topic. The author uses what has happened in the past and interviews with people to help them explain the topic.
“Crystal Lombardo.” Vittana.org, 2 July 2018, vittana.org/14-should-college-athletes-be-paid-pros-and-cons. This source is about the pros and cons of college athletes getting paid. The author wrote this source for people trying to see both sides to this topic. I think this is a credible source because the author uses both sides to this topic. The author uses pros and cons for college athletes to get paid.
“SHOULD COLLEGE ATHLETES BE PAID?” Apex, 1 Aug. 2018, apexsports.io/should-college-athletes-be-paid/. This source is about should college athletes be paid. The author wrote this source for people trying to see if college athletes should get paid. I am confident this is a credible source because the author seems like he knows what he or she is talking about. The author uses charts and numbers to show how much is made by each sport.
“NOTHSTINE: Should College Athletes Be Paid?” The North State Journal, nsjonline.com/article/2017/08/nothstine-should-college-athletes-be-paid/. This article is about why college athletes should be paid. The author wrote this source for people looking for more information on the topic. This is a credible source because the author seems to know the topic well. The author uses what has happened in the past in the article.
“Our Athletes Speak Out: Should College Athletes Be Paid?” CampusLATELY, 24 July 2017, www.campuslately.com/athletes-speak-college-athletes-paid/. This website is about whether or not college athletes should be paid. The author wrote this source for people looking for more information on this topic. This is a credible source because the author uses both sides to explain. the author ask people their opinion on whether or not they should be paid.