In contrast, for football and basketball, the NBA and NFL have rules in place that makes it so these young athletes must play in college before entering the draft to play as a pro. This can be a problem for some athletes who need money to support their families or themselves. Another rule by the NCAA is that collegiate athletes cannot earn money for their talents, whether it is by sponsorships, boosters, talent scouts for universities, or even people who would just like these athletes to play for a certain college. These rules raise the question, should college athletes be compensated for their talent? Many believe that a problem with paying college athletes is that their maturity level is not to the point where they can handle a large sum of money.
To Pay or Not to Pay To exploit means to make full use of and/or derive benefit from something or someone. In the case of student athletes, exploitation has become a major argument. In discussions of athletes and money, a controversial issue is whether or not student athletes should be paid. Many argue that being a college athlete is like having a full-time job, with players either at practice majority of the day, or in class the rest. In this case, they question why not give them some sort of payment to help aide the harsh student expenses they are forced to pay?
But should companies like Nike have to give student athletes a piece of their jersey sales? Absolutely. The NCAA throws the word amateurism around far too often. There is a fine line between remaining an amateur and becoming a professional in the eyes of the NCAA. Turning pro does not guarantee endorsements and royalties; it simply means that an athlete will be paid to play for his organization.
The NCAA is a greedy organization that chooses to exploit gifted athletes. They falsely refer to the athletes as “student- athletes.” The main priority of an athlete is excelling in his sport, which generates money for both the school and the NCAA (745). Therefore, an accurate label is “athlete-student,” or better yet, “slave”. One of the “incentives” for athletes in college sports is the concept of a “free” college education in return for playing a sport at the university level. The impression one gets is that the student-athlete plays a sport and receives a quality education.
Money drives the desire for so many of the players to play at higher levels. Because of this, huge pay-off controversies have been uncovered by schools who are trying to get a recruitment edge. I believe that a great injustice is being done to these athletes across Division I football, and steps need to be taken to reward the players that graduate from these universities rather than dropping out or leaving to play professionally. Michael Lewis, esteemed author known for his writings on sports economics, compares NCAA football players to “serfs”, the lowest rung on the feudal system of medieval times. These serfs spent their lives laboring for the good of the rich,
Of course many athletes receive scholarships, but young financially underprivileged students can't always balance school, athletics, and a job. Because of this, college athletes should be paid for playing for their college to firstly, help them financially accommodate their expensive lifestyles, give them the money they played hard to earn, carry on their academics and finally to allow for stress free recuperation
The NCAA and its opponents for paying college athletes are of the opinion that paying student will bring in corruption, exploitation and disarray to collegian sports, while other are of the mindset that the price of a college education is enough. According to the College Board, average total costs for 2009-2010 were $35,636 at private universities and $15,213 for in-state students at state colleges (College Cost$ Gone Wild, 2010). While the NCAA and opponents for paying student-athletes is firm in their beliefs, they have little ethical or moral ground to stand. It is true that in today's economy, a college education is very expensive and unachievable for some, but when compared to the dollars the athletes generate annually there is no comparison. Speaking with the Assistant Dean of Student Affairs at the University of Rhode Island, Earl N. Smith III, the questioned was posed, "should collegian athletes be paid for their services while representing their universities?"
If many players are paying trainers to get them in-shape and trainers are costing a lot of money to inject steroids into players, why should Commisioner Bud Selig care how much the cost of players being tested really is. If players are hurting the game and loosing the game its publicity and its fans, testing players regardless about the money will be a good decision if the league every wants to follow the rules and play the game correctly. This will not hurt the league if this costs them millions of dollars. The only people who are viewing this is a lose if the MLB because they don’t want to put out the money. Players are getting payed enough money by the teams to play good in games without using performance enhancing drugs.
Speech Outline Purpose Statement: The purpose of this speech is to show the audience why college athletes should be paid. Thesis Statement: College athletes deserve to be paid for a variety of reasons including: Introduction: As an athlete it is obvious that the harder you work the more success you have and every athlete’s dream is to play professionally. I feel that one of the major problems of being a college athlete is that you cannot get paid for playing. The NCAA makes millions of dollars a year off of student athletes. Body: 1.
“Recruited athletes, alumni children, faculty children, members of historically underrepresented minority groups, and ‘development cases’ have an advantage, and by the time they have all been accounted for, the number of slots remaining can be extremely small compared with the ever-growing applicant pool” (Delbanco 117). This is the popular process that most colleges and universities, private or public, go through. In their attempt to get the brightest and most diversified students, Ivy Leagues especially tend to dismiss low income students in exchange for students with legacies and family names that can bring them money. Those students may not be as promising for the schools academics but most promising for the schools name. This is how the unfair divide in the Ivy League universities works and the process does not seem to be changing anytime soon.