An article from The Atlantic called “The Shame of College Sports,” is currently trending about the idea of paying college athletes. I have recently read this article and found myself intrigued and caught off guard by the author’s ability to persuade, whether or not that was the intention of the story. Check out the article below: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/
However, I do not agree with college athletes being paid. The debate over the status of amateur athletes and whether or not to pay them is taking the sports world by storm right now, especially given the amount of NCAA teams being exposed for violations over the last year. After reading “The Shame of College Sports,” however, I almost found myself changing my mind on the issue, until I thought about a few points that will be discussed in this post.
First off, I’m not discrediting the arguments made in The Atlantic magazine article. The author, Taylor Branch, discusses in depth the inner-workings of the NCAA, including its origins, its motives and its definitions of terms like “student athlete.” However, after days of pondering, I am sticking to my conclusion that college athletes should not be paid, and here’s why:
According to The Atlantic, the NCAA and the sports industry is a billion dollar business, arguing that academics at universities in a way, take a back seat to athletics. For instance, they say that a campus would shut down classes if it meant getting television coverage for a 3:00 p.m. football game. Additionally, there are national T.V. networks devoted to highlighting college sports, such as ESPN U. The “March Madness” NCAA basketball tournament brings in 80 million or more viewers alone every year, according to The Atlantic. Considering “The Shame of College Sports” is nearly a 20-page article, there are many more arguments made that prove why college athletes should be paid.
While The Atlantic describes the NCAA’s definition of “student athlete” as vague, the word “student” still remains in the title. When an athlete receives an athletic scholarship of any kind, he or she is being summoned an educational institution to play sports for their teams, and also get an education at their university or college. For athletes to attend schools on athletic scholarships, they are still required to make good grades, and maintain them for the most part once they are attending that school. Players become ineligible for sports if their grades are not up to par. And finally, players that are injured do not lose their scholarships. So the real debate is that education should still be prioritized, even with athletic scholarships, which it isn’t right now.
Currently, athletes on scholarships to schools are receiving a free education to play for a school’s sports teams, and are also receiving stipends, and national television coverage week after week. So regarding the argument that college athletes should be paid, it’s fair to say they already are.
Student athletes are paid with monthly stipends to be spent on whatever they choose. They are also receiving national T.V. coverage on a weekly basis. For the small percentage of athletes that eventually do make to the big leagues, the weekly T.V. coverage, needless to say, is likely the main contributor to them betting recognized.
Mitch Albom once said “athletes’ biggest currency is celebrity.” When college athletes are being displayed as celebrities on national television every week, have highlight reels on ESPN, and have their jerseys sold in stores, they are celebrities. Athletes are being paid in celebrity commodity, which can potentially enhance a professional career in the future.
The people in favor of college athletes being paid need to realize that they are being paid, they’re paid in the most valuable currency; education. No, college athletes are not making million-dollar salaries like the professionals, but I argue that being paid with what could be considered, as “free” education is in many ways, more valuable than money.
Athletes like LeBron James, who make millions in the pros right out of high school, are certainly well off. But they’re missing out on an opportunity to achieve their dream, AND make money by going to college. College athletes are given that opportunity and should appreciate it instead of wondering why they aren’t on salary.
Scholarships to athletes provide them with basically free education, sometimes at major universities, like the University of Michigan and University of Texas. College athletes are being paid with scholarships and free education, especially when many of the athletes on scholarships often wouldn’t have the means to attend college otherwise. They are being paid in money and opportunity.
Student athletes are given the opportunity to be able to make money after graduation if they do not end up making it to the pros. This opportunity is more valuable than just being paid for playing a sport, because it’s the best of both worlds.
Professionals, of any kind, earn salaries. Amateurs, like college athletes earn college degrees. The definition of amateur is a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons, according to http://www.dictionary.com. If “amateur” athletes were being paid, not only would they no longer be considered amateur, but would not be fulfilling the definition of competing in a sport for pleasure.
One of the most attractive parts of college sports is the raw passion the players have for the game, which is often not seen in professional sports. The main difference here is money. The players not receiving financial benefits are more passionate than they players being paid to play. Paying college “amateur” athletes would simply ruin passion-driven college sports.
While The Atlantic argues that college sports are a big business, attracting millions of viewers on their television networks, etc, it is also possible that paying college athletes could deter viewers from watching. College sports fans are often attracted to the passion and love of the game college players possess, which makes college games dramatic, and fun to watch. Paying college athletes could easily lose those viewing college games because it is likely the nature of the game will have less of the raw passion viewers crave.
Overall, college athletes should not be paid monetarily in salaries for playing their sport. It robs the definition of “amateur,” sucks the passion out of college sports, and can create extensive problems with recruiting and the NCAA rules in general. College sports need to preserve the raw passion and talent they possess now.
Maddie's Sports Talk 