Should College Athletes Be Paid, Essay Example

The question of whether or not college athletes should be paid for participating in college sports programs is long standing and controversial. This who believe college athletes should be paid usually cite the fact that college sports programs, particularly those based in basketball and football often generate huge sums of money. The industry of college sports is a multibillion dollar entity that involves media, merchandising, and national prestige. All of this is made possible through the efforts of unpaid performers who, in addition to providing top-notch athleticism and entertainment for a multibillion dollar industry, must also navigate their way through a college curriculum. The argument for paying college athletes has a basis in legality. For example, “Two law professors at Michigan State University, Robert and Amy McCormick [have] added a new dimension to the long debate over paying athletes by arguing they are ’employees’ under federal labor laws and entitled to form unions and negotiate wages, hours and working conditions,”(Cooper). So, in addition to the logical and emotional appeal of the “pro” side of the argument, there is at the very least the potential for grounding in law.

Obviously, one of the strongest aspects of the legal argument is the reality of mass-profits that are earned for various parties through college sports. As Andrew Zimbalist points out in his bookUnpaid Professionals: Commercialism and Conflict in Big-Time CollegeSports (1999) the exploitation of college athletes stands at the heart of the mega-industry’s existence. Zimbalist writes that “Big-time intercollegiate athletics is a unique industry. No other industry in the United States manages not to pay its principal producers a wage or salary. Rather than having many competing firms, big-time college sports is organized as a cartel,” (Zimbalist 6). The logical remedy, argue those who favor paying college athletes, is to share the wealth by directly paying athletes a salary. This, along with the other points mentioned above, seem very logical on the surface. However, a closer look at the issue reveals that the argument in favor of paying college athletes is actually quite weak and that the preponderance of evidence suggests that college athletes should not be paid. The following discussion will show three key reasons why the argument in favor of not paying athletes is stronger than the argument in favor of paying them.

The first reason is that paying college athletes undermines their resolve to follow through on their schoolwork. In fact, if college athletes knew that they were going to be paid for sports before they enrolled in college, it is likely that a significant rise in the number of students who are academically and intellectually unequipped for college would occur. This would damage the academic environment for all of the professors, staff and students and is therefore best to be avoided. Sack and Staurowsky remark in College Athletes for Hire: The Evolution and Legacy of the NCAA’s Amateur Myth (1998) that “when students are recruited and paid to attend college primarily because of their athletic skills, it is very likely that some of them will have neither the motivation nor the aptitude to perform college-level work.” (Sack and Staurowsky 95).The blunting of incentive for athletes to maintain their academic responsibilities is not only a likely outcome of paying college athletes; it is probably an unavoidable outcome of paying them. This means that colleges must act to protect their academic integrity and this is made much more difficult under the payment system.

The second reason is that undermining the academic incentive for athletes will result in large number of them leaving college without any prospect of future employment. This would waste the thousands of scholarships that are awarded to college athletes every year. The Washington Times article “Paying College Athletes Is No Solution to `Exploitation'” (1996) notes that any money made by college-age kids is likely to be quickly squandered. “Because of a student-athlete’s age, maturity level, ego and lifestyle, the money will disappear quickly. When the athlete uses up his eligibility and the pro teams do not knock at his door, all he will have is a few thousand dollars as opposed to a college degree.” (“Paying College Athletes Is” 14). This defeats the entire purpose of attending college altogether.

The third reason that paying college athletes is a bad idea is that all athletes, whether amateur or professional face the prospect of sudden injury or some other career-ending event. In sports even more so than in other careers, the individual athlete’s active career is expected to be short and filled to the brim with heated competition. As noted in the Washington Times article, it is a bad idea to hold “the notion that a jump shot or a powerful throwing arm will carry a person through life. The ride eventually has to end, and, for some, it ends too soon.” (“Paying College Athletes Is” 14). Paying athletes in college send s the wrong message about what both college studies and sports are actually supposed to be. For most people, a career in professional sports is something that will always remain a dream even if they play in college. However, a college education is something that can be accomplished by anyone who applies themselves and works to attain a set-goal. Money can be spent and quickly forgotten, but an education lasts for a lifetime. Therefore the argument that college athletes should be paid, while appealing on the surface, is actually misguided, the reward for participating in college sports is to excel in the sport and gain life experiences along with gaining your education.

Works Cited

Cooper, Kenneth J. “Should College Athletes Be Paid to Play?” Diverse Issues in Higher Education 23 June 2011: 12+.

“Paying College Athletes Is No Solution to `Exploitation'” The Washington Times (Washington, DC) 15 Jan. 1996: 14.

Sack, Allen L., and Ellen J. Staurowsky. College Athletes for Hire: The Evolution and Legacy of the NCAA’s Amateur Myth. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998.

Zimbalist, Andrew. Unpaid Professionals: Commercialism and Conflict in Big-Time College Sports. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1999.

Outline

1. Introduction: Should college athletes be paid?
2. Long standing and controversial argument.
3. “Pro” side based on reality that college sports is a multibillion dollar industry.
4. a) Athletes must excel at sports and academics.
5. b) Not paying them is exploitation.
6. c) They are legally entitled to payment.
7. “Con”argument based on three points.
8. Payment undermines athletes’ determination to follow through on academics.
9. a) Undermines thousands of scholarships.
10. b) Lowers academic experience for everyone.
11. Athletes left unprepared for life after college.
12. a) Spend money very fast.
13. b) Most do not become professional athletes.
14. Sudden injury or other loss could ruin career and life.
15. a) Athletes at a special risk for injury.
16. b) Education more dependable than money.