Why College Athletes Should Be Paid To Play Sports - Research Paper Example

Why College Athletes should be Paid to Play Sports. The debate as to whether college athletes should be paid or not is one that has elicited mixed reactions from the students, universities and the public as there are those who feel that these young sports persons need to be paid for their talents. On the other hand, there are those who hold firmly the opinion and support the status quo that the college athletes need not to be paid. As a matter of fact they consider it absurd paying college athletes. With both sides of the arguments providing equally tenable measure of facts and opinions to support their course, it is undoubtedly clear that this matter may not be put to rest once and for all. Not even with this presentation which aims to support in totality the need to pay amateur athletes, or so as college athletes are known. Johnson and Acquaviva observes that the argument to pay college athletes is one that has been in existence as early as the 1900s, but admits that the intensity has risen in the recent past. What would be the cause of this? The two provides possible scenarios that may have culminated into this state of affairs: The current economic climate which has forced everyone including amateur athletes to look for money, or may be, the colleges and universities have given the public access to their annual budget thus having an insight on the profits generated by athletics, or may be, it is the hefty amounts paid to coaches and the money colleges make from the Football bowl games and Basketball Tournaments. Johnson and Acquaviva notes, as does other writers in this topic, it is football and basketball as the key sports that do generate a lot of revenue to the institutions of higher learning. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is the body charged with the responsibility of governing every facet of college sports in the United States. Established in 1906, NCAA has evolved over the years in its activities which are to the best interest of student athletes, member universities and the general public (Grant et. al, xxiv). However, critics do not buy this as the body has been, lately, under the skeptics attack concerning the standoff on paying college athletes. They ask the question to whose interest is NCAA working. Most writers on collegiate sports confirm that college athletes bring sizable revenue to their institutions. But what do they get in return? Woods, 65, reports that an athlete on full scholarship receives a four year education that may be worth an upward of $50,000 per year on the higher side. This covers books, room and tuition. It is true that Football and men’s’ basketball college athletes generate huge incomes to the tune of billions to the schools and NCAA, yet they receive stipends in the form of scholarships. Is this a fair deal? Generating a debate on this course, here are my points in support of the argument. Unlike other students, college athletes are prohibited from engaging in part- time jobs that can earn them money as most of their time is spent preparing for the sport (Woods, 65).This implies that student athletes are disadvantaged in the financial arena for the time they can use to earn extra cash is utilized in the pitch. It is therefore proper that the athletes be paid beyond what they are paid in the form of scholarships, at least to cater for their miscellaneous expenses and an appreciation of their valuable talents. The old notion of offering athletes scholarships is not enough to justify the many millions these athletes make for their universities and NACC. It is thus proper for them to be involved by having a share of the pie. Furthermore, the so called scholarship is a one year renewable contract which can be terminated by the university at any given time (for particular reason) leaving the athlete at the mercy of both the institution and the coach. Paying the amateur will mean an organized and financially independent student cum player. Secondly, it should not be forgotten that without the players there is no coach and no NCAA. Actually the latter is in existence thanks to the players. Players should therefore be given the central focus not only in the pitch but also when it comes to motivation or rather sharing of the bounty they help bring. There cannot be any play without players. On the contrary, Coaches appear to have cut themselves a special niche where they strategically tap the best of what the players help bring. This they do by being recipients of huge salaries. Woods, 64 writes that college sports, particularly revenue producing sports like basketball and football, have evolved into big business making amateur sport a lucrative commercial venture for many universities. With this, coaches take home $3 to $4 million a year in addition to bonuses for performance. This is nothing compared to the stipends the players receive in the form of scholarships. Grant et.al, 27 confirms that as early as 1900, the coaches’ salary in some schools had surpassed that of the university president. These sentiments are echoed by Jozsa, 63.Jozsa observes that college sports have become part of a profitable business but it is the coaches and athletic directors of schools who reap from it while the student athletes are exploited. The high pay, writes Jozsa, 64, makes these coaches popular and has the opportunities to abuse their powers. More so, they manipulate the NCAA rules and worst still, exploit the student athletes whose lives they commercialize. In addition, paying athletes will minimize cases of schools being punished because their athletes accepted favors from outside sources. This, of course, is a violation of the NCAA rules. There are a myriad of rules instituted by NCAA which member schools have no option but to observe. NCAA’s position is that college athletes are amateurs, and amateurs cannot be paid to play their sport (Arnold, 111).This rule prohibits colleges from paying the athletes more than the full tuition scholarship. Athletes too are prohibited from accepting favors from outside sources. Paying the athletes will reduce the temptation by athletes to receive under table payments and other favors. A good example of this NCAA violation and the punishment alongside it is the recent cases of Reggie Bush and Cam Newton who allegedly received favors for playing football. Bush was stripped off his Heisman title after it was determined that he and his family accepted favors from sports agents while playing at the University of Southern Carolina. This saw the full weight of the punishment being exerted on the Trojans who lost their 2004 Bowl Championship series title. Newton on the other hand nearly paid for a crime he did not commit. NCAA established that his father had sought money from the State of Mississippi when his son was joining Auburn school; payment for his son’s talent. Newton was however spared on the grounds that he was not a party to and had no knowledge of his father’s scheme. It is quite obvious why college football recruiting violations are high and why athletes accept favors. The solution to this lies in the payment of the student athletes (The Daily Evergreen). More so, as Grant et, al , xxii writes, the college athletics is ideally a profitable business venture in which the universities and businesses reap millions but, not one in which the student players benefit per se. They proceed to quantify in monetary units just what is at stake. In 2003, CBS paid a total sum of $6 billion to televise the tournament through to 2013. The Fox network paid $320 million to broadcast the championship bowl game from 2007 to 2009. This was also inclusive of the Fiesta, Orange and Sugar Bowls from 2007 t0 2010.ABC in 2004 signed a $ 300 million contract to televise the Rose Bowl to 2013.In 2007, The Gators and Buckeyes each received $17 million for a single game in a championship held in 2007. These figures indeed confirm that college athletics, particularly men’s football and basketball generates millions to the colleges and businesses. It is thus proper and ethical and perhaps, humane to let these proceeds trickle down to the players who ultimately ploughs it in. Martin, 1 also confirms the nature of business college athletics creates. He confirms that NCAA remits in its accounts a total of $11 million from TV deals and wonders why players are not compensated. Penultimate, I find the ideas of a civil rights historian Taylor Branch, as presented by Waldson, 1 about the topic rather intriguing. Branch argues that his aim is not only to see the players receive compensation, but also see them given their rights. This he says makes the players consenting participants in the system having at hand their bargaining rights .It is true that profits are made in the big business of college sports but, as many writers concur, this is done without the knowledge of the athletes who are the players. Is it fare that these chief financiers of the system be gagged and denied a chance to voice their concern in the system they help keep alive? Branch refutes the claim that a college scholarship alone is enough as a means of rewarding the players. In rendering their services, the players need to be given their rights. A New York Times columnist, Joel Nocera, writes Jozsa, 60, share the same climate of reasoning on the student athletes rights with Branch. Nocera argues that the student athletes should be given the right to consult professional advisors and not agents. The benefit of this he says, is that the student athlete is well informed of the contracts and scholarship opportunities before appending his signature. More so, the player eventually becomes a client of his advisor which enables him to negotiate with a professional team. If implemented, athlete students will have a voice to air their concerns and have them paid for their services. This does not augur well with NCAA whose primary concern, seems not to be the players but the coaches and athletic administrators. Nevertheless, student athletes need to be paid for their rare and valuable skills and talents. Just as professional players earn a living through sports, so should college athletes. If anything, that’s what they spend much of their time doing; training for the game. Some of the students come from poor families, and with a guaranteed payment, this can act as a source of income to many families. Colleges, especially ones with revenue generating programs should pay their athletes and stop looking at them as merely students. Throwing another weight in support of this are two Michigan State law professors. They argue that student athletes are employees of the schools and as such, they are entitled to form labor unions. It is through such unions that they are able to agitate for their demands like negotiate for their pay (Jozsa, 60). Since most of these players spend much of their time training, or should I say laboring, it should then follow that they receive remuneration that commensurate with their input. Certain questions need to be asked. What if the student athletes get injured in the process of play? Or, what if the injury picked denies the athlete a chance to show case his talent in the pitch ever again? This is another major reason that calls for the payment of college athletes. The contract is renewed yearly and I bet the coaches have a bigger role in influencing such. This by no doubt leaves the players at the mercies of both their institutions and coaches, something that would be different if only the athletes were entitled to pay. On the other hand, there are those who still cling to the notion of ‘amateurism’ and defend the notion of ‘no pay- for play’. Several arguments have been advanced to support this standing. According to NCAA president Mark Emmert, it is not a wise idea to pay student athletes for the following reasons: Paying the athletes, he argues, will make the sports agents, alumni and boosters and gambling syndicates to bribe the players to manipulate point spreads or even lose games. In addition, it may encourage the students to enroll in phony academic courses and cheating in examinations. More so, it will create arguments and mistrust among college officials, athletic directors and coaches (Jozsa, 59).These factors couples up to take away from the game, the taste of a real game, for there are cases of corruption, side shows and under table deals that compromises the game. I find this argument quite inconsiderate of the students’ welfare but centered on the concerns of NCAA and colleges. Other critics of ‘pay for play’ are quick to observe that student athletes already receive payment in the form of scholarships to play for their schools. Paying the athletes more, they argue, puts more value on the athletes than their non-athlete counterparts in college. Terming it as wrong and unfair to pay student athletes, I suggest these critics would see the injustice perpetrated on the athletes by their ‘bosses’ who reap millions out of their services( athletes) but shares none of it with them. I believe this is not only wrong but is also a form of oppression. More so, they point out that student athletes are students first and being athletes is secondary. Paying them would put more value to athletics than academics which is the primary reason they are in school. More so, they posit that schools are academic institutions and not sports business ventures. In contrast, I beg to disagree. That point is only valid as long as college sports is not commercialized, but as it is, players demanding payment is just but a by-product of the commercialization process. As such, they need to be part of the increasingly lucrative business by demanding a share of what they arduously help generate. In conclusion, the debate on paying the student athletes seems to be yielding some fruits but is far from over. Jozsa, 59, records that NCAA president is in favor of a review which will see the student athletes each receive an annual payment of $2,000 from their schools for miscellaneous expenses on top of multiyear scholarships. This is still nothing compared to what the athletics body earns at the back of these talented athletes. I am not saying that the athletes be paid billions of dollars but, with the huge amounts of money NCAA gets because of the players, the players surely deserves a share of the pie. The time they spend in the field quantifies the play as a job in itself. A remuneration that will see the athletes live comfortably in college and focus on their future is not too much to demand for. I hope NCAA is listening. Works Cited ‘NCAA’. Why Student Athletes are not Paid to Play.2012. Web. 17 Dec. 2012. www.ncaa.org Dennis A. Johnson and John Acquaviva. Point/ Counterpoint: Paying College Athleticss. Unites States University. 2012. Web. 17 Dec. 2012. http://thesportjournal.org/article/pointcounterpoint-paying-college-athletes Frank P. Jozsa Jr, Frank .P. Jozsa Jr. College Sports Inc: How Commercialism Influences Intercollegiate Athletics. New York : Springer, 2012. Print. Kaleybanyai. College Football Recruiting. Youth Voices.2012. Web. 17 Dec. 2012. Randy R. Grant, John Leadly and Zenon X. Xygmont.The Economics of Intercollegiate Sports. London: World Scientific, 2008. Print. Rodger A. Arnold. Macroeconomics (With Access Code).Belmont: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print. Ronald B.Woods. Social Issues in Sports, 2E. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2011. Print. Sam Martin. College Athletes: To Pay or not to Pay. Neojorno. Web. 17 Dec. 2012. http://blog.hawaii.edu/neojourno/2012/10/31/college-athletes-to-pay-or-not-to-pay/ The Daily Evergreen.College Athletes Should not Get Paid to Play.2011. Web. 17 Dec. 2012. http://dailyevergreen.wsu.edu/read/College-athletes-should-not-get-paid Travis Waldon. Taylor Branch on Paying College Athletes and Athletes’ Rights as Employees.2012. Web. 17 Dec. 2012. http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/07/11/514488/taylor-branch/?mobile=nc Read More