Why College Athletes Deserve To Be Paid
For decades collegiate athletes have put their bodies, minds, and soul into their beloved sports for fans across the world. They sacrifice their time all in pursuit of excellence in their respective fields. All their training, effort, diets, and lives focus on getting better at their respective sports. Their efforts are broadcasted all over for fans to enjoy and critique. While being broadcasted for their talents and efforts, college athletes aren't making a penny off of their hard work. College athletes that invest their lives, efforts, and resources into honing their talents and entertaining millions, deserve to be paid for their extraordinary contributions to collegiate sports. Anyone putting that much effort into anything, earning a company billions should get compensated with a check.
Along with the NCAA earning billions, colleges are also earning money from their athletes competing. The most colleges are willing to offer, are scholarships for these athletes. These colleges are earning heaps of money from their sports programs and aren't sharing it with the athletes generating them the wealth. Recently, only some colleges are also letting their athletes make money off of their names and likeness. There are mostly no opportunities for athletes to make any money through their college athletic programs. Athletes deserve some of this money they are giving to their schools and the NCAA. What they're doing is very accurate to a job, and they're not getting their paycheck. The NCAA distributes most of their revenue with colleges, and that revenue doesn't find its way to a single athlete. The only way college athletes are "paid" are through educational-related payments, such as their school books or laptops for school. They also get paid tutoring. That doesn't seem like a paycheck, it's more like a benefit. Colleges are opening up to NIL deals however, allowing college athletes to get paid off of their name, image, and likeness. Such as through tv commercials and products. That's one step towards getting these athletes paid, but it is not the same as receiving a check due to your work. It's more like how social media influencers make their money.
Most college athletes are not coming from privileged backgrounds. The fact that collectively college athletes are making the NCAA billions and not receiving any payment back is very exploitative. Most of the athletes need the money to meet their financial needs. Instead all the money goes into the NCAA's pockets.
Some criticism to whether college athletes should be paid are, if regular students aren't getting paid because of their academic skills then why should athletes get paid for their talents as well. Facts are that regular students aren't putting extreme strain on their bodies. They also aren't putting their bodies and future careers at risk everyday. Athletes have a huge physical toll they have to endure because of all their training and roughness of their respective sport, but along with all that comes a mental toll as well. Athletes have to persevere everyday, and deal with the fact that they can't live a regular life and go relax whenever they want. Depending on your sport, there can be lots of injuries involved, athletes have to make up a way to pay off medical bills since they aren't receiving checks. Compensation would help with the medical bills, but it would also motivate all of these athletes.
Most college students have time off while the college day is over. However college athletes have to train rigorously for hours. After that the relaxation process is a task too. With ice baths, physical therapy, and much more. It's not just laying down and relaxing, it's healing from the training which can also be painful as well. So college athletes really have no time to get up and do whatever they want while they're on their busy schedules. Game days can be even more busy, with games taking hours depending on their respective sports, and the relaxation and healing process after the games taking just as long. Athletes also cannot eat whatever they want as well, they have to follow their strict diets depending on the sport they play. For some that can hurt them mentally. Family time is also hard to attain due to busy schedules. College students do not have to deal with any of this, so it's just another reason for college athletes to get paid. Something that regular college students don't have to deal with is barely having time to study and work on school work.
Another critique of college athletes getting paid is that it would remove the "amateurism" of the sport due to the paychecks making it more business oriented. Critics say that it would make college sports more commercialized. I think this is a huge hollow excuse, because college is already very commercialized. People are just trying to find another way to not pay athletes. The NCAA is making way more than enough to compensate paychecks for their athletes. I can see where they're trying to get at however, they're saying it'll become more of a NBA style league where the teams with the most money are gonna have a big advantage over smaller schools, but the NCAA can place regulations making the playing-field even.
Another critique is that the NIL deals for these athletes is enough for them. That might be the case for big stars such as Bronny James, LeBron James' son. However for athletes that have no coverage whatsoever, it'll be impossible for them to receive any NIL deals. That system just isn't as fair as just a balanced paycheck from all these athletes' schools. The NIL deal system really shows the disparity between elite athletes and those who do not receive the same level of coverage and recognition. While some athletes thrive financially through NIL deals, the majority of them are left without any means of income from their athletic abilities and skills. Which really shows that the system is flawed and that paychecks would be a fair and balanced solution.
Something to consider about college athletes are their impact on their local communities. College sports generate billions of dollars for schools, networks, and company sponsors. Yet the athletes still aren't getting their fair share of the revenue. While scholarships are offered, they don't compensate these athletes for all their contributions to collegiate sports and more. By not paying these athletes the NCAA is essentially exploiting these athletes that invest their lives, efforts, and resources into honing their talents for their respective sports and entertaining millions. It's only fair that these athletes receive a paycheck for the help they bring to generate all the billions for the NCAA. Anyone putting this much effort into their craft and earning a company billions should be compensated with a paycheck.
Many analysts and sports reporters have been pushing for college-level athletes to get paid for their skills and craft. Many others believe that colleges should not have to worry about handing their players a paycheck. I think college athletes should be getting paid for their skills and commitment to their respective sports. Not to mention bringing in tons of revenue to their universities.
Taking a look at "Should College Athletes Be Paid?", an article written by Mark J. Drozdowski, there are certain points that can be made in proving why college athletes should get paid. The first point made is "College sports generate billions of dollars for schools, networks, and corporate sponsors." If colleges are making loads of money off of these athletes, shouldn't the athletes be getting their fair share of it? All for the hard work, time, and dedication they put forth for their college and sport each day? The second claim is "Everyone is making money off college athletics - except the players." This isn't an understatement at all, the athletes only really get "paid" by the college offering a scholarship, other than that they don't see any other form of money. All of it goes to colleges and is distributed throughout the NCAA. The third claim in the article reads that "The Supreme Court ruled that colleges can offer "education-related" payments to student-athletes." This isn't money so much as it is just like scholarships that are offered. The "education-related" part means that college athletes can get college materials such as computers and books completely paid for. They can also earn paid internships as well as study abroad programs, and tutoring. However, this is not the same as a paycheck. The final claim is that "The ruling opened the door for name, image, and likeness endorsement deals, and athletes already are cashing in." This isn't the same as college athletes getting handed a check like professional athletes, but NIL deals still allow them to make money using their likeness and branding. The article overall serves up a compelling argument towards the big issue of college athletes being able to get compensated for all their hard work.
This next selection is a series of 3 letters written to the editor in response to Cody J. McDavis's Op-Ed article about whether college athletes should be paid. The first letter written by Tom Barnard from Shaker Heights Ohio argues that Division I sports should not be in universities at all and suggests that aspiring pro basketball and baseball players should be paid by their respective leagues instead. Barnard points out that Division 1 sports have corrupted college athletics and that they have completely lost sight of the purpose of college. Even when saying that however, he suggests that minor league players still play in their divisions and that an NBA development league pays all these aspiring college basketball players instead. In the second letter written by Gerald Bowman, he says that colleges should stop playing the act that all these college sports are about school spirit and amateur competition, and just rip the bandaid off and realize that it is all about money and that college athletes deserve some. Bowman says that paying college athletes would be a small step towards honesty. In the third letter by Jack Heneghan, a former quarterback at Dartmouth before a brief stint with the San Francisco 49ers suggests that paying successful college athletes would not ruin college sports, but would ensure that it remains a popular activity for fans, students, and alumni. He says this against the fact that McDavis states that paying college athletes would create an "arms race" that only a few colleges would truly be able to compete in.
Cody J. McDavis tries to persuade the audience by using ethos. He uses his credibility as a former college athlete. Mcdavis argues that paying college athletes would take away the amateur aspect of the sport; he draws on his own experiences to support his argument. One example would be that he notes that the value of being a college athlete comes from pride and a sense of community and not getting a paycheck. He emphasizes his own experience as a college athlete and appeals to his audience's credibility of himself.
Moreover, in addition to using ethos, McDavis also uses logos, or logical appeals, to support his argument. He points out that paying college athletes would create a bunch of logistical problems, such as determining how much each athlete should be paid and how to ensure that payments are made fairly. By highlighting the potential complications of paying college athletes, McDavis appeals to the audience's sense of logical reasoning and attempts to convince them that the idea of paying college athletes is impractical and non efficient. Additionally, he suggests that paying college athletes would create a divide between athletes who play for smaller schools and those who play for larger, more profitable universities. Through these logical appeals, McDavis aims to persuade his audience that paying college athletes is ultimately not in the best interest of college sports and would cause complications.
Despite McDavis's attempts to present a balanced argument, there is a clear bias implemented in his article. McDavis is clearly opposed to the idea of paying college athletes. He presents his points to only one side of the argument. He doesn't acknowledge any points that people arguing on the other side would bring up. Such as people that believe that college athletes should be paid for their contributions to the multi-billion dollar college sports industry. By leaning toward one side of the argument in his article it is clearly showing his bias toward the situation. The bias he provides weakens his argument towards the situation.
In conclusion, it is clear to see that there are many reasons backing the fact that college athletes should be getting compensated for all the work they put in to hone their craft. In Mark J. Drozdowski's article and the letters to the editor there are tons of focal points and facts all making compelling arguments in favor of paying college athletes. All the articles' points boil down to the fact that these college athletes that spend most of their lives training their bodies and minds for years, bringing in billions in revenue, deserve some compensation for all their efforts.