College Athletes and Athletes

¶ … College Athletes Be Paid? Athletics at college level comprise of an array of competitive sports and games that are largely non-professional. These sporting pursuits demand a lot of physical skill and involvement. There should also be requisite systems necessary to prepare the athletes for higher-level competition and excellent performance. In the U.S., for example, there are over 400,000 students who participate in college sports competitions every year. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) organizes the largest participation programs.

Others that undertake such programs are the national Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) and NJCAA, which is the common reference for National Junior College Athletics Association. College basketball and American football draw the highest number of fans and viewership. College athletics in the U.S. is regarded as amateur sport and is limited to a specified number of available scholarships that are based on Title IX in the U.S. (NCAA). Taking part in college sports is fun and enjoyable for many students.

It is also attractive because it offers chances for scholarships (NCAA). Yet, a close examination of the life of a college athlete reveals that they are not having as much fun as the world thinks. There are challenges and, indeed, hard truths that confront a student. It is debatable whether college athletes need to be paid. Schrager points out that the cartel linked to college sports generates a whopping $1 billion each year as revenue. Most of the income comes from sale of television rights and March Madness.

A case in point is the match between Kentucky vs. Wisconsin basketball match. It was viewed by the highest number of people locally and was even televised by international channels. At least 27 million people viewed the match on CBS alone. International broadcast through ESPN was done to over 170 countries. CBS and Turner Broadcasting paid NCCA a huge sum of $10.8 billion. That was back in 2010 and the payment was meant for 14 years of television rights to broadcast college athletics competitions.

The payment was not excessive since CBS is reported to have sold over 1.13billion dollars worth of ads in the 2015 tournament. It is also reported that head coaches Bo Ryan of Wisconsin and Krzyzewski of Duke accrued combined earnings of $12,628,032 in the 2015 tournament alone. It is clear that all the revenue generated is shared among all other stakeholders except the athletes. The idea of the need to pay college football players has been a fiercely debated topic since the 1900s.

The immense revenue generated from sale of television rights in the NCAA football competitions and basketball's Match Madness, cause an ever-increasing clamor to have college basketball and football participants paid much more than just scholarships. However, some still think that there is need to pay the players. This paper is an argumentation that seeks to explore the advantages and disadvantages of paying or not paying college athletes (Johnson & Acquaviva). According to Peebles, college athletics is big business.

He further points out that the only people who are not paid, or have limited gains are athletes who participate in the games. It is evident that only college athletes who are restricted financially in college life. Therefore, the claim that it is based on educational considerations is a big lie. Other students are never told what they can or cannot make. It should not be overlooked that college athletes put their lives and health on the line in participating in the rigorous competitions.

Indeed, many athletes sustain serious injuries while playing in the competitions. A few are only lucky to recover and compete again. There have been cases of athletes paralyzed because of tackles or hits they get in the field of play. Many have seen their careers come to an abrupt stop. Such sacrifice calls for compensation at the very least (Patterson). Johnson and Acquaviva point out those using scholarships as an excuse to not pay athletes are being unfair and misplaced. The claim that scholarships provide free education is false.

NCAA added more provisions to the initial scholarship that only included tuition. Now athletes with scholarships are provided with room, boarding, and books. The scholarships range in value from $30,000 to $200 000; although it is better to peg the figure at between $ 20,000 to $100,000 over a four-year span. It is important that the figures still do not equate to the full cost of attending college. According to estimates done by Collegiate Athletes Coalition (CAC), the scholarships provided by NCAA fall short of the required cost of attending a university by about $ 200,000.

This computation is modest because it does not even factor expenses such as travel and sundries in the estimates. Thus, the scholarships are more of pay for play. Even if the scholarship was to be a full one, an athlete will still pay something between $8,000 to $12,000 from their own pocket to bridge the gap for sundry costs. It follows, therefore, that a full scholarship still does not provide free education as claimed by NCAA. Whether a full scholarship is a fair deal for the athlete, remains an unanswered query.

Paying college athletes is thought to be the only means via which financial awareness can be created. This opinion ignores the fact that many athletes are financially irresponsible. According to ESPN documentary, the financial woes that afflict many professional athletes have been explained. The report notes that about 60% of the NBA players become broke five years after they retire. Many of the players attribute this to poor investment, lavish spending habits, and trusting financial advisors, many of whom are unethical.

If most of the schools start paying their players, it could help link the students to financial investors who care about the interest of the students; irrespective of whether they proceed to playing as professionals or not. They would gain some financial literacy that they would carry into the careers they may eventually choose to pursue. This can improve their future financial dealings (Patterson). Schrager opined that paying college athletes for participating in sports may not be the best solution.

According to him, this could do more harm than good to the sport. It would give the universities an opportunity to short-change the athletes on the only valuable thing they get: education. Student athletes have to endure many hours of training and spend more of their time playing games than studying. Often, even the best students who are elite athletes come to the university less prepared for a college curriculum.

There are cases where athletes have not been able to write their papers, study subjects of questionable academic merit and take fake classes. According to statistics, students who enrolled in 2008 graduated at a slightly above average rate, however, in some sports, such as basketball, they registered the worst grades. It is true that if the athletes are paid, there should be an intense NCAA oversight and there are other practical issues that need to be considered.

For instance, the amount of money the athletes have to be paid must be based on their performance. What happens when the athletes get injured? What about athletes who get injured but remain in the team even though they may not get an opportunity to play at all? These are salient issues that raise more questions than answers.

Note that the most important question is what will happen to sports that do not generate any revenue to colleges such as basketball and football? Only part of Division I football and men's basketball programs are profitable. The remaining programs (apart from Division I football and basketball) as well as other sports that include hockey, golf, softball, women's basketball, and all division II sports fail to make money but drain the athletes budget. Therefore, it would mean that the athletic department would pay only football and basketball players.

This would result in elimination of non-revenue sports (Johnson & Acquaviva). Peterson suggested that if college athletes were to be paid, it could detract from the purity of the game. many fans, at this point, support the teams.