Matt Barkley's Views on College Athlete Compensation
Today, saying you are a college athlete comes with serious prestige, especially if you play Division I. Not only will you be able to get a college education, for many they will be the first of their family, you have the opportunity to play the sport you love as well. However, this is not enough for some people. The debate about paying college players to play has been around for quite some time, but, just recently, a new group has formed arguing that a stipend for living expenses does not go far enough to compensate these athletes. They want to use “20% of the combined $11.3 billion” the NCAA made off of a television deal with CBS and use the roughly “$2.6 billion [they would have] to pay the athletes” (DeVoe). Collegiate level athletes do not need any type of monetary compensation whatsoever because they are already given much more than most students in college.
As it is written, student athletes are students first and then athletes. It is more important for them to acquire an education than it is to worry about how much they could stand to make by going to one school over another. They were blessed with enough athleticism to obtain a full ride scholarship from a university, something only a select few can say. “For many student athletes… athletics is the only vehicle that can take them to their destination of higher education” (University of North Texas). My opposition would argue that for most college athletes, college is their one chance to show the world what they’ve got and that they should be rewarded for it. According to DeVoe, “they deserve to be paid.” The truth of the matter is that student athletes are being paid; they are getting a free education. Not too long ago, the NCAA began to include monthly stipends in the scholarships they hand out to try to help athletes have some spending money for activities outside of sports. How is a free education not enough compensation for an athlete’s abilities? What many people fail to realize is that going pro out of college is nearly impossible. In fact, Baseball is the “only sport that had more than 2% of NCAA players go pro [last year]” (Manfred). So 98% of all student athletes will be looking for a job outside of professional sports, and they will succeed because of the FREE education they have received. That seems like pretty fair compensation to me.
A system implementing the paying of collegiate athletes is unfeasible and will only bring problems, not solutions. Right off the bat, there is no way to fairly pay every athlete on scholarship. How do you decide who is going to get paid? One solution my opponents think is a good idea is just paying the players whose sport brings in the revenue, mainly men’s football and basketball. However, “Forcing athletic departments to pay its football and basketball players would result in the eventual elimination of most, if not all, of the non-revenue sports” (Johnson and Acquaviva). It could not be stated any better; if we move to pay football and basketball players, those will be the only teams a college has because there will not be enough money to fund other programs. The next question is will the quarterback be given more money than the kicker because he is more important? How do you decide importance on a team? These are just a few of the many questions that pop up when there are talks of trying to implement this kind of system. Title IX of the NCAA makes it abundantly clear that women have to be treated as equals to men (Forde). This implies that women athletes would have to be paid just as much as men are and women’s sports are not revenue producing; schools spend more money on their programs than they make. Another problem is where does the money come from? According to Johnson and Acquaviva, “only 24 football and 20 Basketball Division I programs turn a profit.” That means that the majority of athletic departments never make a profit. They are strictly to allow for student to come to school as athletes and use their talents as a means for education.
Although I agree with my opposition when they state, “whatever brings in the money should be paid accordingly,” they focus on the wrong kind of payment (Hayes). For most athletes, the satisfaction of putting in the hard work and seeing the results out on the field is more than enough and has been what they’ve known all of their life. They train, sweat, and bleed for the sport they love. They do it “without reward or material gain, and unprofessionally” (Allison) because they live for the competition only sports can bring. This is the definition of amateurism. All college athletes are amateurs, and that is what makes collegiate sports so appealing to the masses. The games are pure competition. To show that you are better than the guy across from you or the guy dribbling down the field trying to score on you has and always will be enough for these athletes. It’s not like professional sports where you see guys holding out on contracts because they do not think they are being paid enough. It’s pure in the sense that these athletes only need the opportunity to play, and they will perform as best they can day in and day out. This would not be the case if they were being paid to play. It would slowly degrade into professional sports. This loss of college sports would greatly decrease the revenue of colleges across the nation since these sports teams bring in major revenue. Therefore, schools would be losing prestige because they no longer have the ability to flaunt their football or basketball team. They would also be shooting themselves in the foot academically because the revenue made off of collegiate sports pays for any new buildings, books, or equipment the school would need.
Student athletes are given fair compensation for how they impact colleges and the system does not need to be changed. The scholarships the NCAA provides athletes are more than adequate. In fact, “79% of all Division I athletes… earn a degree” (Marot) because of the NCAA and its dedication to their athletes. These athletes have been given one of the best gifts anyone could ask for, a college education. Oh and that is without paying a penny out of their pocket.
Word Count: 607
As it is written, student athletes are students first and then athletes. It is more important for them to acquire an education than it is to worry about how much they could stand to make by going to one school over another. They were blessed with enough athleticism to obtain a full ride scholarship from a university, something only a select few can say. “For many student athletes… athletics is the only vehicle that can take them to their destination of higher education” (University of North Texas). My opposition would argue that for most college athletes, college is their one chance to show the world what they’ve got and that they should be rewarded for it. According to DeVoe, “they deserve to be paid.” The truth of the matter is that student athletes are being paid; they are getting a free education. Not too long ago, the NCAA began to include monthly stipends in the scholarships they hand out to try to help athletes have some spending money for activities outside of sports. How is a free education not enough compensation for an athlete’s abilities? What many people fail to realize is that going pro out of college is nearly impossible. In fact, Baseball is the “only sport that had more than 2% of NCAA players go pro [last year]” (Manfred). So 98% of all student athletes will be looking for a job outside of professional sports, and they will succeed because of the FREE education they have received. That seems like pretty fair compensation to me.
A system implementing the paying of collegiate athletes is unfeasible and will only bring problems, not solutions. Right off the bat, there is no way to fairly pay every athlete on scholarship. How do you decide who is going to get paid? One solution my opponents think is a good idea is just paying the players whose sport brings in the revenue, mainly men’s football and basketball. However, “Forcing athletic departments to pay its football and basketball players would result in the eventual elimination of most, if not all, of the non-revenue sports” (Johnson and Acquaviva). It could not be stated any better; if we move to pay football and basketball players, those will be the only teams a college has because there will not be enough money to fund other programs. The next question is will the quarterback be given more money than the kicker because he is more important? How do you decide importance on a team? These are just a few of the many questions that pop up when there are talks of trying to implement this kind of system. Title IX of the NCAA makes it abundantly clear that women have to be treated as equals to men (Forde). This implies that women athletes would have to be paid just as much as men are and women’s sports are not revenue producing; schools spend more money on their programs than they make. Another problem is where does the money come from? According to Johnson and Acquaviva, “only 24 football and 20 Basketball Division I programs turn a profit.” That means that the majority of athletic departments never make a profit. They are strictly to allow for student to come to school as athletes and use their talents as a means for education.
Although I agree with my opposition when they state, “whatever brings in the money should be paid accordingly,” they focus on the wrong kind of payment (Hayes). For most athletes, the satisfaction of putting in the hard work and seeing the results out on the field is more than enough and has been what they’ve known all of their life. They train, sweat, and bleed for the sport they love. They do it “without reward or material gain, and unprofessionally” (Allison) because they live for the competition only sports can bring. This is the definition of amateurism. All college athletes are amateurs, and that is what makes collegiate sports so appealing to the masses. The games are pure competition. To show that you are better than the guy across from you or the guy dribbling down the field trying to score on you has and always will be enough for these athletes. It’s not like professional sports where you see guys holding out on contracts because they do not think they are being paid enough. It’s pure in the sense that these athletes only need the opportunity to play, and they will perform as best they can day in and day out. This would not be the case if they were being paid to play. It would slowly degrade into professional sports. This loss of college sports would greatly decrease the revenue of colleges across the nation since these sports teams bring in major revenue. Therefore, schools would be losing prestige because they no longer have the ability to flaunt their football or basketball team. They would also be shooting themselves in the foot academically because the revenue made off of collegiate sports pays for any new buildings, books, or equipment the school would need.
Student athletes are given fair compensation for how they impact colleges and the system does not need to be changed. The scholarships the NCAA provides athletes are more than adequate. In fact, “79% of all Division I athletes… earn a degree” (Marot) because of the NCAA and its dedication to their athletes. These athletes have been given one of the best gifts anyone could ask for, a college education. Oh and that is without paying a penny out of their pocket.
Word Count: 607