Jordan Rutherford
Composition and Speech Essay #1
01/25/2013
Paying College Athletes Paying college athletes has been a controversial topic since… well since college athletics was started; Especially once sports started becoming broadcasted and televised nationally. And even more so once colleges were present in big games (bowl games, March Madness, and other championships) and being compensated for them. Colleges should pay college athletes because the athletes are making the college money, and do not have time for a job to make their own money. The first agreement for paying college athletes and the main agreement is that the athletes are making the university money, and not receiving any “cut” of it. It’s getting worse now with the contract deals occurring between colleges and TV stations, and how much money they are receiving for revenue. Jay Bilas, a commentator, writer, and studio analyst for ESPN, states that, “It is not immoral for the N.C.A.A. to make money off of athletics. But it is profoundly immoral for the N.C.A.A. to restrict athletes from receiving compensation while everyone else profits.” This would possibly solve the problem of college athletes leaving the college early for the “pros”, and potentially finish with a degree. The second agreement supporting pay for play is that the athletes are putting majority of their time and effort into their sport, and do not have time to have a job. This especially hurts the athletes that came from a more poor family, that do not have the money to support their child in college. I think that the athletes should be paid a stipend, everyone would have an equal distribution, even if it’s $2,000 that’s not much compared to what average college students could make. The average college student, working a part time job, works 30 hours a week, and majority are paid minimum ($7.25 in Iowa). In a 3-month period they would still exceed the amount of the stipend. Some argue that college athlete’s compensation is generated through athletic scholarships. That is no different than a non-athlete college student receiving an academic scholarship, and then still being able to have a part-time job on top of that. The main argument against pay for play is that majority of the athletic programs do not even make profit. So would the only athletes being paid, be the athletes in the profitable programs? That doesn’t seem fair to the other student-athletes that put just as much time and effort into their sport. Therefore, these non-profit programs wouldn’t receive the same funds as the football and men’s basketball programs, or would have to be cut. According to USATODAY.com, this would probably result in law suits due to Title IX, and other non-profit programs. The second argument against pay for play is that a “student athlete” means being a student comes before being an athlete.