Should College Athletes be Paid to Play.
C Team
BCOM/275
Robert May
Should College Athletes be Paid to Play.
Should college athletes be paid to play? That is the question and discussion being presented not only in this paper but also across many colleges in these United States. There are many pros and cons to college athletes being paid to play their sport, which makes this is a very controversial topic. Are the sport scholarships and uniforms enough? Should schools really pocket all that money they make in revenue from the sports teams? Many moral, ethical and legal issues can be raised in the idea of paying college athletes to play, on both the pro and con side of the issue. Should ...view middle of the document...
Think about what would happen if every student athlete protested and refused to play their sport. There would be no games for the fans to come to, along with lost sales. Would the universities then come up with the money needed to pay them, or suffer from the lost revenue? (Garcia, 2011)
I do believe that athletes should be paid in some way. Monthly stipends or payment for completing school. This payment would encourage athletes to graduate, perhaps giving them an extra reason to stay in school besides a diploma. They could even offer to fully fund the pursuit of a post-graduate degree for those who complete an undergrad degree and are interested in furthering their education (Garcia, 2011).
Paying student athletes to play would allow more schools to be competitive “in college football from 1950 to 2005, just 10 schools held 45% of all the top-eight slots in the final Associated Press rankings” (Berri, 2013). From this stat we can tell that it is a small portion of schools that compete at the highest levels and if schools were allowed to pay players this would open up the opportunity for many schools to become more competitive.
CONS
With every positive, there is a negative. For example, paying a player will create a jealousy factor among students who are not athletes and then you have to figure in what athletes get paid because it would be difficult to pay every athlete because most schools have a multitude of different sports. Then do you pay the upperclassmen only (Thomas, 2010).
I understand that some people think it’s a job and they should be paid but isn't a free education enough, is free apparel not enough. Athletes in the past never got paid (at least legally) so why change the rule. The NCAA has always been a "If it ain't broke don't fix it" type of organization and I would not expect them to change their stance or be deterred in any way when it comes to paying student athletes to play college sports (Thomas, 2010).
If you’re unaware, the NCAA released data showing that only 14 programs are turning a profit without having to rely on institutional support (like student fees or a check cut directly from the university coffers) (Dosh, 2011). There are over 1100 colleges with athletic programs (NCAA, 2014) if only 14 are turning a profit how will these other 1100 colleges come up with the money to be able to pay student athletes.
There is also the question of Title IX, if you do not know what Title IX is this is an explanation from the Department of Education of what it is and who is required to follow the guidelines” Title IX covers state and local agencies that receive ED funds. These agencies include approximately 16,000 local school districts, 3,200 colleges and universities, and 5,000 for-profit schools as well as libraries and museums. Also included are vocational rehabilitation agencies and education agencies of 50 states, the District of Columbia, and territories and possessions of the United States.
Programs and...
