Should College Athletes Be Paid to Play - Assignment Example

Should College Athletes be Paid to Play? Introduction It is a common sight today to find people attending soccer and football matches in their free time especially during weekends. In essence, sports are considered recreational activities. Professional players in major soccer and football teams are known to earn millions of dollars per year. It is important to note that many professional sportsmen start engaging in sports at a very young age. Therefore, it is highly likely that many of them played for their colleges as students. Just like in any other activity such as learning, practice is imperative in sports since it is the only way athletes hone their talents. Despite professional sports being a source of income for many athletes, college athletes are not paid. This is termed as exploitation of student athletes by Sack (93). This paper explicates the reasons why college athletes ought to be paid. NCAA rules on paying college athletes There are opposing arguments that college athletes ought not to be paid to play. For instance, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has implemented policies that do not allow colleges to compensate their athletes for attending their institution other than through covering for their tuition fees or scholarships (Arnold 121). The NCAA also argues that college athletes are not professionals and therefore should not be paid (Arnold 121). Some people conversely argue that the debate to pay college athletes is not justified since they are already benefiting through their scholarships. As other students are paying for their tuition therefore, athletes are not charged anything and thus paying them extra would be unfair to other students. According to Woods, college sports are a source of income for the learning institutions (63). People have to pay in order to be allowed to watch college athletics. In order to maximize on their profits, many colleges have invested huge sums of money in constructing stadiums that have the capacity to accommodate thousands of people. Woods further argues that colleges "add to their income through parking fees, concessions, souvenirs, and the luxury boxes that come with substantial fees for alumni or business people who want to entertain clients" (64). Despite these huge profits from athletics, colleges do not pay their athletes. This can be construed as an exploitation of the talents of these athletes. Athletes have a higher chance of performing poorly academically There is a relationship between sports and the quality of education athletes get. As postulated by Delaney and Madigan, athletes may not achieve high academic performance they could have otherwise achieved if they were not involved in athletics (124). This is in regard to the fact that their scholarships and contracts with the college mainly prioritize athletics over learning (Sack 92). If injuries occur towards the end of college life, this may mean that the athlete may not benefit much from his or education in comparison with other students due to poor performance. A methodical investigation cited by Jameson, Diehl and Danso showed that football, basketball, and hockey players have lower SAT scores as compared to other students (69). Subsequently, future engagement in sports may never be an option in case an athlete suffers a permanent injury (Fort and Winfree 94). NCAAs rules exploits the poor Some of the college athletes are from poor backgrounds and therefore have no financial security. Sack observes the history of recruitment and posits that poor neighborhoods were the main targets for college athlete recruiters three decades ago (93). It is of significance to note that athletes qualifying for a scholarship in big colleges must possess excellent or outstanding athletic talents. If college athletes are not professionals as viewed by NCAA, then why would colleges target only athletes with exceptional talents to award scholarships? Denying payment to athletes from poor backgrounds as reiterated by Sack also denies them the right to secure their lives as well as those of their family members financially (93). What follows is colleges earning millions of dollars from the sale of tickets and the players are languishing in poverty. Athletics is a full time job An article by Hartnett regards college athletics as a full time job. On a daily basis, these athletes according to Hartnett are required to wake up early to practice, attend lectures the whole day, and then continue will practice in the evening (para. 6). In addition, these athletes are required to finish their homework and term projects on time. Whereas other students may squeeze in some time especially in the evenings to find a part-time job to earn some pocket money, athletes rarely find time to work. They may therefore find it hard to afford food and other fundamental items like the other students. In my opinion, the effort they put in terms of juggling between classes and practice, and the fact that they rarely find time to work for extra money warrants payment for playing. NCAAs restrictions are unfair The NCAA laws restricts college athletes against giving out their names or pictures for use commercially. These policies denies them the opportunity to earn from modeling contracts and also through endorsements (Freedman 681). Take for instance a star athlete being touted by entertainment producers for a role in a movie or television program. Since NCAA restricts them from such opportunities, how else could they secure their future financially since they are not paid for playing? This is unfair to the college athletes. In this scenario, it can be deduced that the athletic talents of the student has made him or her qualify for a movie or television role and hence could accomplish his or her goals in life. However, the NCAA policies unjustly weakens his or her chances. For an athlete to be allowed to play, he or she must sign a consent form denoting that he or she will abide by the NCAA policies. Though the athlete cannot benefit financially as shown earlier, the institution under which the athlete is enrolled has a right under the NCAA guidelines to use the athletes name for their own selfish gains (Freedman 692). This is exploitation and hence they ought to be paid. Athletics denies students the right to privacy Star athletes have no right to privacy. NCAAs laws that restricts athletes against benefiting from the use of their own names can be extrapolated to be in contravention of common law that allow people to control how they identities are used (Freedman 692). Freedman argues that no other person has the right to benefit from publicizing other peoples identities or the use of their properties (693). On the other hand, college athletes are treated unfairly since they have to sign documents forfeiting these rights before they can play. Subsequently, the college and the NCAA rakes in millions unjustly through exploiting their players. Indirect benefits for the college Colleges also derive indirect benefits from athletics. The publicity that comes with wining tournaments is argued by Woods to attract bright students as many of them would like to be associated with such colleges (64). It is worth noting that bright students will significantly improve academic performance and therefore gives a college a starting point to source for grants and as well improve their chances to benefit from private funding from. Employers would also want to be associated with constantly publicized institutions of higher learning and hence may also give financial support and as well give employment opportunities to students from these colleges. All this is made possible by the contributions made by the student athletes and hence it would be justifiable to compensate them accordingly. Athletics is booming business for colleges The fact that college athletics is commercialized necessitates payments for the athletes. According to Nocera (para. 4), college basketball and football played by male athletes is estimated to make approximately $6 billion a year from sale of tickets, as mentioned earlier, television broadcasting rights, and through companies advertising their products through the teams. NCAA, for example, sold the rights to broadcast male basketball to the CBS and Turner Broadcasting for more than $10 billion to run for a span of more than ten years (Nocera, para. 4). Despite them raking in billions of shilling, the athletes who makes all that happen are left with nothing. In fact some of them can hardly afford nutritious food on a daily basis. Coaches are also known to earner millions of shillings from college athletics. Athletes are also at the mercy of these coaches. A word from the coach can easily get an athlete kicked out of the team. While all this is happening, the rights of the players are forgotten (Gurdus 908). Fort and Winfree supports this argument and assert that failing to pay the athletes only inflates the remuneration for coaches and other staff associated with sports in colleges (94). Some people according to Fort and Winfree oppose paying college athletes under the assumption that paying them would bankrupt college sports departments (94). Inflating remuneration for sports staff also inflates expenses and this could also cost the college huge sums of money and thus, this assumption is not justifiable. People opposing payment of college athlete argue that these athletes have added benefits other than just receiving an education and athletics. For instance, Johnson and Acquaviva assert that there are clubs in which the athletes are free to join and get exposure for free (para. 15). Others argue that these athletes receive athletic trainings for free hence they ought not to be paid. In other words, they argue that these college athletes become popular and accumulate a huge fan base by the virtue of their engagement in college athletics thus payment is unwarranted (Johnson and Acquaviva, para. 15). However, this argument is refuted. In their refutation, Johnson and Acquaviva asserts that athletes may never find time to enjoy these other activities since much of their time is taken up by sports (para. 34). Paying athletes as a means of maintaining order Another reason why college athletes ought to be paid is to prevent them from breaking the law. Cohen in an article published in the Wall Street Journal in 2011 cites results from a study conducted by the National College Players Association which showed a deficit of more than $3000 in the scholarships awarded to student athletes (para. 7). This deficit elevates the likelihood of student athletes to break the laws outlined in their contracts in a bid to make some extra cash to cover the deficit. Some people may argue that implementing laws that allow payments to student athletes will introduce partiality since some colleges earn more than other. However, Cohen refutes this argument and posit that "Theres is nothing about pursuing a bachelors degree that restricts that persons ability to make money-even a lot of it" (para. 15). Contracts are negotiable and whatever a college may agree with the athlete as payment would be fair as compared to not paying them at all. In a nutshell, colleges make a lot of money at the expense of the athletes and hence they ought to be paid. Though there are opposing opinions, their exploitation warrants remuneration. Works cited Arnold, Roger A. Microeconomics. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2013. Print. Cohen, Ben. "The Case for Paying College Athletes." The Wall Street Journal. 16 Sep. 2011:A4. wsj Web. 19 Nov. 2014. Delaney, Tim, and Madigan Tim. The Sociology of Sports: An Introduction. Jefferson: McFarland, 2009. Print. Fort, Rodney, and Winfree Jason. 15 Sports Myths and Why Theyre Wrong. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2013. Print. Freedman, Laura. "Pay or Play? The Jeremy Bloom Decision and NCAA Amateurism Rules." Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 13.2 (2003): 673-711. Web. 19 Nov. 2014. Gurdus, Jason. "Protection Off of the Playing Field: Student Athletes Should be Considered University Employees for Purposes of Workers Compensation." Hofstra Law Review 29.3 (2001): 907-930. Web. 19 Nov. 2014. Hartnett, Tyson. "Why College Athletes Should be Paid" Huff Post Sports. 23 Oct. 2013: A4. huffingtonpost Web. 19 Nov. 2014. Jameson, Mathew, Diehl Robert, and Danso Henry. "Stereotype Threat Impacts College Athletes Academic Performance." Current Research in Social Psychology 12.5 (2007):68-79. Web. 19 Nov. 2014. Johnson, Dennis A, and Acquaviva John. "Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes." The Sport Journal (2012): n.page. Web. 19 Nov. 2014. Nocera, Joe. "Lets Start Paying College Athletes." New York Times. 30 Dec. 2011: A4. nytimes Web. 19 Nov. 2014. Sack, Allen L. Counterfeit Amateurs: An Athletes Journey Through the Sixties to the Age of Academic Capitalism. Park: Penn State Press, 2012. Print. Woods, Ron. Social Issues in Sport-2nd Edition. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 2011. Print. Read More