Counterpoint Exercise
College Athletes Should not be paid
Introduction
This paper gives a counter-argument against the previous argument that college athletes should be paid. The individuals who debate against paying college athletes state that it would change the idea of college sports. Everything being kept constant, playing any sports in college is hard to achieve. Even though there are several football field players, it does not mean they facilitated their way there. To add, that applies for any game, one should have the choice to participate at a significant extent than high school. It is a vision that many student-athletes require to make a star; research shows that about 7 percent of high school athletes move to the top level while 2 percent of these athletes reach the Division 1 level. College athletes should therefore not be paid due to the fact there are limited resources and athletics is just like any other college sport, which is not paid.
Counter Argument
The first reason against paying college athletes is that if colleges in a way managed to pay athletes, the funds would not be enough to cater for areas like the administration or the couches. Not completely do colleges have good money. However, it would similarly nullify the idea of attending class. “Many former college athletes object that money would have spoiled the sanctity of the bond they enjoyed with their teammates” (Branch, 2011). If athletes in a way happened to start receiving payments, it would give individuals motivation to discuss paying with various students in the school. In the event that colleges pay the athletes perhaps, they ought to similarly do it for the lead musician in the school, or the key actor character in art creations, and professors need to allot course enrollment opportunities to those students who offer the most noteworthy. “The publicized academic plight of college athletes is small potatoes compared to the growing, nationwide discontent with the colleges themselves” (Byers & Hammer, 1997). It would similarly cause the expense of college increasingly costly. The funds would require originating from somewhere. That would render it difficult for an average student to go to college.
It would be extremely out of line with different understudies. Several of the college athletes are apparently on grants and scholarships, so it would not make sense for them to receive payment like the professional athletes. Many college athletes argue that because they do not have the opportunity to land into ranks, they should be paid by the college to earn extra cash to spend. What they fail to understand is that the average college understudy is a white-collar category and requires paying their way through college. It is not that because they do not play a sport, they have the money to spend. These students would execute to have their school paid for, and what they would want to trouble over is their evaluations.
The second reason is that college athletes ought not to be paid because they are not professionals. “Paid athletes would destroy the integrity and appeal of college sports” (Branch, 2011). College athletes are persons who are trying to get to the experts and, in this way, are not paid because they are yet to succeed. Because these athletes are in college, they should never be paid to participate in athletics. College sports are more similar to other classes. College students choose something that they need to pursue with the aim that they can learn and begin a career. College sports ought to be dealt with similarly (Branch, 2011). The motivation behind why nobody pays someone to do any of that is because they are training in their field to be paid when they find a new line of work. In college, sports students play to get to the professionals, not to procure a paycheck as an understudy. What individuals disregard college athletes is that they are student-athletes. The word students precede athletes. Nobody in college is paid to score an A+ or complete a significant assessment. College is where one figures out how to develop further and how to handle life.
The third reason is that, for college athletes, it is not just about playing the game. The watchword in “college athletes” is college. These students are required to accomplish passing marks to stay qualified to cooperate with winning a degree. On the off chance that an understudy athlete does not keep up the best possible evaluations in their classes, then it could affect cooperate with taking care of the conversation on a perfect grant. Even though the instructive fulfillment of college athletes has become a significant worry in the United States, there has been little research on the connection between participation in college sports and instructive accomplishment. The study found that athletes were less arranged for college and accomplished less scholastically in college than the general student population.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should, therefore, be noticed that it would be a complicated process in pursuing to pay college athletes. The NCAA should not be undermined on a single issue due to the exploiting of students. The college athlete must consistently perform at a reasonable level while at the same time being a college student. Unlike the previous argument that college athletes should be paid, I think the opposite of the argument makes more sense that indeed college athletes should not be paid just like the other sports in colleges.
References
Branch, T. (2011). The shame of college sports. The Atlantic, 308(3), 80-110.
Byers, W., & Hammer, C. H. (1997). Unsportsmanlike conduct: Exploiting college athletes. University of Michigan Press.