Unlike elite professional sportspeople or athletes who draw salaries extending into millions, student-athletes are in college mainly for education; they are not professional athletes who are paid incentives or wages for their participation in particular sports. Some of the student-athletes already have access to costly and high-quality degrees because of their engagement in sports. In this paper, I will argue that college athletes should not be paid to play sports because if they were to be paid, there would be no difference between them and the professional athletes. Education should be their primary focus and not just sports.
The reasons which support my thesis/position
Most of the athletes already get, among other benefits, scholarships. Many of the student-athletes have scholarships, especially those playing for sporting programs which compete at the national championships. Besides free tuition, board and room, the athletes also receive stipends which cover for expenses among other basic personal needs. Additionally, the colleges do not require college athletes to pay back the money used while they are on scholarships. Many other college students do not get such benefits and leave school with substantial loan debts like many of their schoolmates. Therefore, most of the student-athletes receive significant advantages compared to other students, making it unnecessary to provide even more benefits by paying them for their role in sports.
Additionally, most programs for college athletics cannot pay their student-athletes. Most colleges lack the money to make consistent salary payment to their student-athletes. Even though some of the colleges might have a lot of cash flowing into their athletics program, a lot of money also go out, and most of the programs operate at losses, making it challenging to cover all expenses comfortably and also pay student-athletes. This means that paying student-athletes will likely make the sporting programs in colleges bankrupt and eventually stop the programs altogether.
Moreover, those arguing against paying college athletes say that most college students are often financially irresponsible. Giving student-athletes more money will mean that they will engage in different irresponsible activities like drinking. They might also use other drugs and find themselves in problems with authorities. The issue of financial irresponsibility can also be exacerbated with the lack of money management skills. Most might fail to create budget plans and find themselves in serious debts. When individuals (student-athletes) who are financially irresponsible get significant amounts of money, they will make many unnecessary purchases and waste the money in things which are less critical hence it is not necessary to pay college athletes.
Lastly, paying student-athletes will likely destroy college sports. It is likely that when college athletes get money, they will likely begin to hold out on their contracts and demand for more money, just like professional athletes. Unions which focus on the college athletes’ rights will also spring up. This situation will also likely lead to lockouts when the student-athletes are not satisfied with how the colleges handle their matters. Such issues will damage college sports. The result is that many talented individuals will not get the opportunity to play and enjoy the sports they love. Many colleges will also be affected, especially when their players have refused to play not unless they get paid more money.
The reasons that go against my position/thesis 2-3 paragraphs
Proponents of student-athletes receiving payment for their participation in sports argue that the students spend a lot of time taking part in the sporting activities. Additionally, they bring in huge sums of money or revenue to their universities. They contend that student-athletes should therefore be paid for taking part in the various sports which bring in cash to the universities. The sporting events often lead to gargantuan contracts between organizations like TV stations which broadcast the events. While the deals may involve millions of money for different organizations, including the Universities and broadcasting agencies, students receive no money in the form of payment.
The other reason is that college athletes often place their bodies in harm’s way every time they compete in sports. Some even suffer severe injuries during competition. The sports expose them to danger, and only a few get lucky to heal while others get permanent damage to their bodies. While elite professional athletes who suffer serious injuries might have made millions already during their career, college athletes who get injured are not paid. Severe injuries may mean an end to their career aspirations and dreams. Because college athletes are in danger of serious physical injuries, it is argued that the risk merits compensation (site).
Furthermore, the school of thought supporting paying college athletes say that playing in college sports is expensive and time-consuming. Students spend a significant amount of money weekly during the athletics activities/season. Additionally, they spend a lot of time participating in sports, leaving very little time for school work. Suffice it to argue that the cost of taking part in sports large yet they make no money in the process of their participation in the activities. This side of argument points out that student-athletes loose on two fronts, one is academically, and the other is not making money. As a result, they should be paid to cover for the cost and to reward them for the time spent on the activities. Moreover, paying student-athletes would make them develop financial awareness. College athletes can learn the basic information and skills on personal finances, skills which can be important later in life, especially after retirement. Evidence suggests that many athletes often become broke some years after retiring from sporting activities because of lavish spending. If colleges begin to pay players, the students can develop the basics around financial management or literacy. Colleges can introduce their players to experts or financial advisors to help them develop financial literacy further.
Lastly, paying student-athletes will give them the incentives to improve their talent and become top-notch competitors for the colleges instead of going professional and leave school. Many colleges comprise of talented players in different sports. However, these student-athletes look for alternative paths to become pros rather than stay at school. The athletes decide to drop out of college and instead train exclusively for the sponsoring club to play professionally either in the country or abroad. Rather than playing for the university for free and with little or no financial support, college athletes view professional sporting as an attractive prospect where they can make money using their talent.
The reasons the other side is wrong
Proponents of student-athletes receiving payment for their participation in sports argue that the students spend a lot of time taking part in the sporting activities are wrong because sporting activities in schools are seasonal and do not take a student’s entire time at school. Additionally, it is not right to say that since universities and other firms like broadcasting institutions make millions of money during the events, student-athletes must be paid. There are some sporting programs in universities which operate at losses, and it is hard to make consistent payment to the athletes.
A college student may indeed be injured during a sporting event. However, these expenses can be covered by health insurance. Students also have an opportunity to heal and complete their education and have a different career other than in sports. It is not wholly accurate that students-athletes spend their money during sporting events because most of them are sponsored by the university during the events. Moreover, even though paying students is likely to make them financially aware, it is also true that some may become irresponsible and misuse the money. A scholarship is a significant incentive and a motivation for many student-athletes to participate in sports while studying. It is thus not true that only payment will make them top-notch or more talented.
Conclusion
The argument or debate about whether college athletes should be paid is fair or appropriate is one which is yet to be sufficiently heated. There are numerous compelling reasons to deny college-athletes payment for their participation in sports. On the other hand, there are convincing reasons which support paying student-athletes salary or wages for their role in sports. Many other college students do not get such benefits and leave school with colossal loan debts, unlike the student-athletes on scholarships. Additionally, most programs for college athletics cannot pay their student-athletes and paying them will likely make the sporting programs in colleges bankrupt and eventually stop the programs entirely. Most college students may become financially irresponsible and find themselves in problems with authorities. They may also find themselves in financial debts because of the lack of financial management skills. It is also likely that paying student-athletes will destroy college sports. They may begin to hold out on their contracts and demand for more money, just like professional athletes. They may form unions which focus on the college athletes’ rights and lead to lockouts when the student-athletes are not satisfied with how the colleges handle their matters. Such issues will damage college sports. The result is that many talented individuals will not get the opportunity to play and enjoy the sports they love.
Proponents of student-athletes receiving payment for their participation in sports argue that the students spend a lot of time taking part in the sporting activities. Since they bring help the colleges earn a lot of money, it is only prudent for them to be paid. Supporters of payment also say that the athletes may be injured, making them unable to pursue their dreams; hence they should be paid. Further, paying student-athletes may help equip them with financial management skills and motivate them to improve their talent and performance in sports. Nonetheless, my position is that it is not necessary to destroy the sports programs and strain universities with paying student-athletes when they already benefit through scholarships.