College Athletes: Pay or Amateur? - Essay Sample

Introduction

College athletics has become a vulnerable topic, especially in regards to the notion of paying college athletes. Johnson and Acquaviva noted that the concept of paying college athletes in the football sector had been an ongoing discussion since the 1900s (01). The college athletics department, governed by the National College Athletic Association (NCAA), has become a billion-dollar industry that has strict rules and regulations such that College athletes should be amateurs as well as students who do not receive any form of remuneration from outside sources (Sanderson & Siegfried 115). However, the issue of remuneration for college athletes has been brought under scrutiny due to factors such as the notion that universities produce a lot of revenue during the year that can facilitate and support athletic students through remuneration. The debate on whether college students should be paid is also contributed by the fact that some people perceive that scholarships paid to schools for the athletic students are enough, while others believe that these payments may make them leave school to participate in athletics. Therefore, this essay will provide an argument on whether athletic students in colleges and universities should be paid by explaining the advantages and disadvantages of paying the students.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The critics of the concept of paying college athletes claim that paying student-athletes may warrant more problems than solutions as the students may divert all their attention to sports as compared to education is prevalent in this discussion. The college athletes in the majority of American colleges receive benefits from the high-quality education system such that they are propelled to move forward. Some of these benefits include a solid fan-base, high-profile name recognition, media exposure, and a competitive atmosphere with proven rivals. All these benefits are achieved by the efforts and revenue created by the institution and help the student to entertain the people with abilities bestowed on him or her (Johnson & Acquaviva 04). However, if the institution decides to pay the student-athlete, it will divert from the action of providing excellent and free education to business-like education, which will disrupt the primary goal of learning. Additionally, some of the people may feel that paying the student money will make them feel more superior in terms of money, reputation as well as power.

In contrast to the above notion, those in favor of paying college athletes claim that college athletes should be paid because they are part of the reason why colleges generate revenue in the first place. Sanderson and Siegfried documented that the NCAA and its members have become famous in terms of increased television ratings as well as media income due to college athletes (115). Without the athletes, the institutions would not be able to make these revenues or to receive this popularity. Therefore, some may argue that college athletes deserve to be paid a specified amount of the revenue that they have significantly helped to generate. Therefore, they feel that the institutions make enough money that it would not affect the expenditure if they take care of their student-athletes by paying them for the services the athletes have accomplished.

College athletes should not receive payment as they already receive scholarships as well as other forms of support from the institutions. The revenue that athletics makes is given back in terms of scholarships and grants to the athletic-students. Therefore, even if the athletes may generate billions of dollars for the institutions; a substantial amount of money is also used to cater for expenses that directly or indirectly help the student. Some of these expenses include paying coaches, as well as gym equipment. Additionally, the availability of student loans have reduced the need for paying college student-athletes

On the contrary, it is argued that college money may be useful to the athletes as it would encourage more students to graduate from school. Some college athletes may be living in poverty, and the money that they get is insufficient in terms of paying for their expenses or even the necessities (Thacker 184). The athletes that can graduate from school are able to stay because their parents support them by sending them money for their upkeep. Furthermore, college athletes are not allowed to work; therefore, without the support of their parents or relatives, they cannot survive in college. As a result of desperation, the student-athlete may accept illegal money to facilitate their stay in school. However, if the institution paid the students an agreed amount, they would be able to sustain themselves as they would be able to cover their expenses as well as afford the necessities comfortably. As a result, more student-athletes would be able to graduate from colleges. Moreover, paying the students would be beneficial to everyone as the students would be forced to go for university education instead of focusing only on the sports section of their lives.

Those against the notion of paying student-athletes explain that the primary reason why students go to school is to learn. Of all the students that go to college, some join student organizations or participating in a theatre. Others play sports (Thacker 185). Despite the myriad groups that may come up in colleges, they all have equal importance to the institutions and should be treated with equality. If the athletes are paid for participating in sports, then the other fraternities will also be forced to ask for payment for their services as they participate in different activities. As a result, paying athletes will only result in conflicts with the other groups as the question of why only one group is being paid for their services will arise.

However, those in support of the notion of paying college students counter this idea by stating that non-athletes have an advantage over the athletes in terms of the working environment since athletes are not allowed to work. As a result, if they do not turn professional, they will not have any working experience when they venture to the real world (Thacker 185). Due to the weak incentives from the institutions, combined with factors such as near-poverty conditions, the athletes that are presented with the opportunity to turn professional usually do so without hesitation. Otherwise, they may end up participating in illegal activities so as to afford necessities. However, if the students were paid, their confidence would be boosted, and they would be able to compete equally with the other non-athletic students.

Those in favor of the motion that students should not be paid claim that payment will make the students think about other things, which will deter them from academic as well as athletic schedules. Moreover, since the students will perceive that they have a good job that pays them, they will not see the necessity of completing their studies and, as a result, may leave college early.

In contrast, those in support of the notion claim that paying the student for participation in a sports program helps to reduce the need for the students to find outside sources to support them. Even though many institutions may offer scholarships, the offer only covers tuition, room as well as board coverage. Nevertheless, a majority of their needs are unmet, and as a result, the student may struggle to make ends meet. Thus paying them for their performance would allow them to focus on academics as well as their sport without worrying about how they will make ends meet. Furthermore, if the colleges do not pay the athletes, then the professional leagues should since they use college athletes as minor leagues. Therefore, they should receive payment the same way the major league players are paid.

Arguers against the concept of paying college athletes may claim that college athletes do not graduate, and those that do take a long time to finish college as they do not get enough time to study the academic course material. Thus not paying the students may encourage them to also focus on the academic aspect of their life so as to secure a future in the working world. #

On the other hand, supporters of the notion claim that athletes are torn between the opportunity to further their education or to start playing officially and earn more money. This indecisiveness further contributes to their failure to or delayed graduation from college. Therefore, college students should be paid some amount of incentive to help them make their decisions and, at the same time, motivate them towards their education as well as athletic careers.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the discussion above highlights the dilemma that institutions are faced with in regards to whether college athletes should be paid. Nevertheless, more reasonable choices should be implemented that will help facilitate support to the college athletes in regards to participating in their favorite sports without unnecessary restrictions. Whatever the decision may be, it should also consider the rights and requirements of college athletes as well as the opportunities that might present themselves in their future lives. I believe that college athletics can be considered as a profession and that the athletes deserve to be rewarded for the services they provide.

Works Cited

Johnson, Dennis A., and John Acquaviva. "Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes." The Sport Journal, vol. 41, 15 June 2012, thesportjournal.org/article/pointcounterpoint-paying-college-athletes/.

Sanderson, Allen R., and John J. Siegfried. "The Case for Paying College Athletes." Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 29, no. 1, 2015, pp. 115-138, www.jstor.org/stable/43194698?seq=1.

Thacker, Dalton. "Amateurism vs. Capitalism: A Practical Approach to Paying College Athletes." Seattle Journal for Social Justice, vol. 16, no. 1, 19 Dec. 2017, digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1892&context=sjsj.