With the increase danger of physical disability, College football players should be paid to play - Essay Example

[Your full July 16, With the increased danger of physical disability, College football playersshould be paid to play. Although every game that is played in schools and colleges, like soccer, volleyball, and football, has the risk of physical injury to the players, but increase in physical disability to players while playing football has put forward a hot debate as to whether or not the college football players should be paid to play. University of South Carolina football coach, Steve Spurrier, says that NCAA should make changes in their policy and should pay college football players “a $300 stipend every game” (qtd. in Rizk). This speech of Spurrier’s has given rise to a dilemma as to what levels of physical risks are there in football game that demand a stipend for the players.

In this argumentative essay, Spurrier’s demand should be supported while highlighting both aspects of the debate. One argument that supports this proposal is that when college football players will be paid to play, they will receive extra motivation that would make them play even better. When they will receive extra money that they can give to their parents, use it for travel and for going out with friends, and spend it on study materials, they will get more enthusiastic about the game. This is called compensating the players or offering them positive reinforcement.

This has more to do with their psychology because money is the most important need of the day and nobody can deny its importance. The argument that the opponents of this proposal is that college players who play for the name of the university already receive so much facilities, financial aids, scholarships and allowances that they do not need extra payments and stipends (Horne). College football players already receive “free tuition, room, board, medical treatment from team doctors, personal trainers, academic tutors, first pick on class schedules to eliminate scheduling conflicts, their own student lounge, etc” (Rizk), so there is no need left that they be paid.

Also, the support they receive from the college authorities, their parents and their peers, the pride they feel while playing for their university, and the satisfaction they receive when they fulfill their desire to play football, is all the stimulus and motivation they need to play well. Hence, there is no need for extra payment. Supporting the debate, it is well said that there is no other game in college that requires year round effort, practice, and struggle, as football does. Players have to keep their fitness all the year round, and there is a lot of pressure on them from NCAA.

They have to struggle hard in keeping a balance between their studies and the game, so there is no harm in paying them extra when there is great risk of physical injury in the game too. Football players need to have a high morale to play this game so that no fear of physical disability comes into their heart. And this morale can be boosted through the stipend proposal put forth by Spurrier. Big Ten Commissioner, Jim Delany, also agrees that “NCAA athletes deserve more than the scholarships they are receiving right now” (qtd.

in Watkins) because NCAA spends millions of dollars on football coaches but a very small amount on scholarships given to college football players (Ringham). The opponents of this debate argue that when you will start paying the football players, then that will make the game sound more like a business. The players might not want to play for the game but they will start yearning for more money every year. This year, if it will be $300, next year they will demand $600, and this demand will keep on rising because after all, it is money matter.

So, money business should be kept out of this game and as for the physical injury, then that is a risk with every game in the world. To sum it up, in this argumentative essay, we have seen both sides of the debate as to whether or not college football players should be paid to play. Despite the risk of physical injuries, the opponents of the debate argue that college football players should not at all be paid to play because it is a waste of money; they already get a lot of financial aid that other athletes and students do not; and, doing so will make it look like a money business.

The supporters of the debate say that they should be paid to play because they have to struggle a lot throughout the year; they have to suffer from physical injuries more than other athletes; and doing so will motivate them to play even better. To conclude, we are convinced that Spurrier’s proposal is good for the college football players and their families, and NCAA should consider this proposal properly. Works Cited Horne, Lisa. “Why College Football Players Should Not Get Paid To Play.

” College Football. Bleacher Report Inc., 2008. Web. 16 July 2011. . Ringham, Eric. “Should College Athletes be Paid?” MPR News. Minnesota Public Radio, 2011. Web. 16 July 2011. Rizk, Alex. “Should College Athletes Should be Paid to Play?” Next Gen Journal. UNC Chapel Hill, 2011. Web. 16 July 2011. . Watkins, Boyce. “NCAA Power Brokers Begin To Flirt with Idea of paying College Athletes.” Your World. YourBlackWorld.com., 2011. Web. 16 July 2011. .