Should college athletes be paid? Two experts weigh in

Paying student athletics is an issue that has been debated for a long time. Many supporters support the principle of compensating student-athletes, although many opponents reject it. Clearly, teenagers who participate in athletics, also known as student-athletes, are actively committed at all times, and they are similar to those who work full-time. They are encouraged to work out, attend lectures, and participate in filming sessions. While it could be argued that the sports in college are extracurricular activities, it should be noted that NCAA-National Collegiate Athletic Associations have a very tight schedule for tournaments requiring the student athlete to extend their period and hence miss the school and sacrifice spending time with their mates and family (Sack & Staurowsky, 19). Therefore, NCAA needs to think of the way to compensate them by not restricting the kinds of benefits and remunerations that they could be able to earn in the market (Berry, 249). Moreover, NCAA should also think of how to offer the student athlete a little cash that will motivate them more and boost their talent. Research has it the college athletics generates about $1 trillion annually for the NCAA and the member institutions but it is only a fraction of this revenue that goes to the players. Moreover, according to the NCAA data, the average top-tier football and basketball player fetches $200,000 per season for his school and only gets $14000 for food, housing and education (Griffin, 11). This is just an example of many more injustices that goes on when it comes to the college athlete that needs to be revisited and changed in favor of the player who is the real star in the show. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to argue that college-athlete should be paid.According to Wallet Hub research, there are many beneficiaries who earn a lot from the effort and sweat of the college athlete. To be precise, the football and men’s basketball coaches, athletic directors and school presidents do get more than $1million on annual basis. Moreover, teaching assistants also gain about $16000 annually from the same. Search evidence can only pose a question as to why the college athletes should be left out (Karaim, 31). Indeed even the holy books states that, a laborer deserves his wages and the athletes are not just ordinary laborers; they have to sacrifice a lot in order to gain (Karaim, 54). But for what benefit do they give out their bodies, energy and time if they receive only peanuts? College athletes should receive direct financial compensation for their effort and amateurism ideal should be ignored. Amateurism is an idea that emerged in the 19th century with a central ideology that people need not be given any material reward for taking part in sport (Crabb, 194). This ideology compares the person with and amateur, according to NCAA definition this is someone who gains no competitive benefit in his sport (Crabb, 208). This background allows me to get my facts right of why the college athletes should be paid.Firstly, paying the college athletes is essential because it will encourage them to stay in school and complete their education instead of leaving for professional career. An athlete who drops out of school to join the club earns big money without any delay and he/she is able to make hundred thousands of dollars annually. Under the NCAA College students are not allowed to be paid and many students leave school to avoid being manipulated by this rule (Sack & Staurowsky, 83). For instance, some college athletes do appear on television and are not paid for such activities while as the respective school earn a lot from the television network. Therefore, by paying these students they will not only be motivating them but also encouraging them to go on with their studies.Secondly, college athletes should be paid since football and men’s basketball are a billion-dollar industry. Research manifests that, many universities and NCAA that are responsible for overseeing college sports make hundreds of millions of dollars by selling tickets, advertising and TV deals among others. Therefore, paying the players will only be a kind gesture to them. This is suppressing the human capital that generates their profits and should not be tolerated. The students bring in an incredible amount of money and yet they receive nothing as the main stars of the tournament (Sack & Staurowsky, 79).Thirdly, college athletes offer their best for they put their bodies on the line as they participate in each and every game. This means that they sacrifice their bodies and healthy but gain nothing at the end. For instance, in 2013 NCAA tournament, a player by the name Kelvin gone a terrible injury on his right leg and could only be back after six months (Karaim, 28). This is one example of a lucky player since many others have been completely damaged on the field and their career ended. Therefore, by paying them it will help them to have something to help them continue living normally in case of injuriesFourthly, student-athlete should be paid for this will help in to create a sense of financial awareness in them. Most of the athletes are very monetarily reckless. According to ESPN documentary around 60% of NBA players go bankrupt within five years of retirement (Smith, 2011).A lot of these players fix their blame on spending lavishly, putting their trust on financial advisors who are unethical and poor investments as the reasons for their problems. By paying these students at college level, the schools will be helping the student to build a good foundation of financial literacy. This could also introduce them to financial investors who are reliable and ready to help them (McLeran, 271). Moreover, in future as they take up playing as their profession they would be able to spend and invest their money wisely and this will give them a secure financial future.Finally, college athletes are both part of the sport team and college advertising team. For example the “Flutie effect” is one of the advertisement network used to help colleges admit many students for they follow the big win in sports. Therefore, the colleges and universities use their athletic success to help in enticing their potential applicants. Therefore, they should be paid off for this and also receive other benefits from schools (Griffin, 35).Counter argument:Despite all the above points that clearly state why the athletes should be paid some people still argue against paying the student athletes. Firstly, they state that the student athlete should not be paid since they receive the scholarships. To them, the salaries would demand the student to pay tax and they could be high thus reducing what the student earns and so they might not even be able to cover for their education, food and housing (Griffin, 22). They might also spend the money on wants and enter into debts, and this could not happen given the benefit of scholarship. This argument is very sound but the salary given to the student will still come under the management of the parent or the guardian and the so it will be well managed. Moreover, tax takes only a considerable amount out of the money and so the athlete will have enough to do other essential things in life since she/he has no family to take care of. Secondly, those against this move argue that, paying the student-athlete could change the nature of college athletics since they are only given a rare opportunity and it is not easy to earn a position on a college team. So, involving the payment would incentivize the student to commit to the colleges which offers the highest and make them to transfer to other schools with greener pasture. This could make the college sports businesses and lead to the downfall of the college programs and performance. Well, this argument has something to help stick to the NCAA rule but at the same time it limits the students from exploring. Moreover, they should understand that, the student-athlete will not be paid more than the other since there will be other rules on how much should be paid to the student athlete (Griffin, 69). Furthermore, this will not be the first step to turning the colleges into businesses since they are already a business as many universities have already turned the sports into a billion dollar industry to benefit themselves as shown in the argument for above.Thirdly, the ones against argue that college student athletes do play at advanced level but they are not yet professionals. Their job is not to play sports but as an extracurricular activity they pursue as they continue with their higher education. This means that, as they learn they do it at a reduced cost for they gain a generous athletic scholarship. Therefore, paying them will change their motive. Precisely, education is a priority and it is only a student who does not know it’s important that will change his motive after being paid. Therefore, it is not logical that a student athlete could divert his dream of attaining the highest marks just because of the salary Smith, 46)Conclusion:To conclude, in my opinion the student-athlete should be paid since they will gain more and benefit more for their services over what they receive at the moment. Paying the students will boost the students’ motivation to offer their best and also help them to continue with their education until the end. Moreover, paying the student athlete will help them to gain the money that they generate with using their bodies and energy instead of being used while others benefit. For instance, it is clearly stated that college athletes generates about $1 trillion annually for the NCAA and the member institutions but it is only a fraction of this revenue that goes to the players (Smith, 69). Paying the student athlete will not be demanding money that is not there it is only tapping from what they have already accumulated.Work CitedBarry, William. “Employee-Athletes, Antitrust, and The Future of College Sports”. Stanford Law and Policy Review, vol. 28, 2017, pp.245-272Crabb, Kelly. “The Amateurism Myth: A Case for A New Tradition”. Stanford Law and Policy Review, vol. 28, 2017, pp.181-214.Griffin, Geoff. Should college athletes be paid? Michigan: Greenhaven Press, 2008.Karaim, Reed. Paying college athletes: Are players school employees. Michigan: Greenhaven Press, 2014.McLeran, Michael. “Playing for Peanuts: Determining Fair Compensation for NCAA Student-Athletes”. Drake Law Review, vol. 65, 2017, pp.256-291.Sack, Alfred, & Staurowsky, Ellen. College athlets for hire: The evolution and legacy of the NCAA's amateur myth. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2011.Smith, R. A. Pay for play: A history of big-time college athletic reform. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2011.