Why College Athletes Should Be Paid

Proper Compensation for College Athletes
Introduction
College athletes with poorer socioeconomic status typically have issues with position educational outcomes. If college athletes were paid, they would have the ability to provide financial assistance to their struggling families, which would provide them with a higher probability to excel both academically and athletically. There is strong rationale that college athletes should be paid, as colleges earn billions of dollars each year from their athletic programs. As with any athletics, college athletes and their sports are the product, The present compensation – a full or partial scholarship, depending on the athlete or the sport – is inadequate compensation for the labor these athletes provide, and the economic benefit of that labor. A more equitable approach to the distribution of the proceeds of that labor will alleviate many of the challenges that college athletes face, in addition to providing distributive justice.
The issue of compensating college athletes has been dissected in many ways. There are blanket arguments for and against, but there is also discussion surrounding the question of how compensation should be handled, if compensation of college athletes is allowed. Some of the issues that have been raised regarding the “how” are whether there should be a compensation cap to prevent unfair recruiting practices, and how should it be determined how much each athlete should be paid. In professional sports, salaries on a team will different substantially, as will salaries between sports. In college athletics, these same issues would arise if compensation of college athletes is allowed. But the first and more important question is whether or not college athletes should be paid, and I believe that they should be paid.
This paper will break down the case for why college athletes should be paid, leveraging from some of the arguments that have been made by journalists and other experts in the subject. A variety of perspectives will be examined. There will also be a discussion of the arguments against paying college athletes, so as to strongman the opposing argument. Then, a recommendation will be made, wherein my argument is backed with the research and the counterarguments are refuted in turn.
Why College Athletes Should be Paid
De Piccioto (2019) notes that college athletics generates a tremendous amount of revenue for the NCAA and for the individual schools. The NCAA March Madness tournament alone generates over $1 billion in television rights. The fact that there is such big money in college sports is held up as one of the major reasons why college athletes should be paid. They are, after all, the product that the audiences watch, and in many instances these athletes are putting their own health on the line, particularly in high contact sports, but often times even in other sports as well, since college athletes are typically operating at peak athletic performance (De Piccioto, 2019). College athletes bear the risk of injury from playing sports, yet receive very little compensation for this risk, in relation to the amount of money that college sports generate for the other stakeholders such as the schools, the media and the NCAA.
Gaydos (2019) points out that recent changes in the legal environment mean that college athletes can earn money from their images, names and likenesses, all of which were previously illegal for college athletes. This law was followed by others, and effectively broke down some of the key counterarguments to paying college athletes, such as the difficult in implementing a system of paying athletes. California’s bill defied NCAA bylaws that previously prevented such measures, and gave a competitive advantage to California schools in attracting athletic talent, such that other states are highly likely to implement their own similar laws in order to match California’s advantage (Gaydos, 2019). Furthermore, the payment allowed by the California law is indirect, and thus not specifically controlled by the schools, so there is an element of individual agency to this argument that should be taken into consideration – the athletes should own their own names and likenesses (Bokat-Lindell, 2019).
Economists also support the idea that college athletes should be compensated for their efforts. There are significant questions about the distributive justice of the present system of compensation, in which some stakeholders receive an outsized proportion of the economic benefits, while college athletes receive an undersized proportion of the economic benefits, relative to their contributions to the economic success of college sports (Sanderson & Siegfried, 2015). There is also a racial element to this argument, given that the top two moneymakers are men’s football and basketball, both predominantly played by African-Americans. Lemmons (2017) notes survey data that shows that black respondents were in favor of paying college athletes, while white respondents were not. So the economic case for paying college athletes also incorporates a racial element, an makes the non-payment of college athletes another pillar on which structural racism prevents upward mobility within poor black communities.
Counterarguments
There are some counterarguments made regarding whether or not college athletes should be paid. Yankah (2015) outlines some of the objections. One is that sport offers college athletes a number of benefits, including the role of athletics within the broader educational context, and he supports this by citing the many sports were professional status does not exist. He further argues that paying athletes would erode the connection between students and their university’s values. To support this point he argues that there is already some market elements to where a student signs, and this alone starts to erode those values.
These counterarguments do not amount to much, when evaluated against the arguments in favor of paying college athletes. The idea that there is a sacred bond between the student and the unversity’s values, for example, is idealistic, and holds no particular water against the argument of economic exploitation of students, especially those from disadvantaged communities. The broader education context argument pales when one considers that many students are not enrolled to gain a more expansive view of the world – much of college today is transactional by its nature, for example any business program. College athletics is a training ground, and it is up to the student to determine what they take from the training ground. Students of all nature of exploited to a degree – doctoral students are not well compensated for the value they bring to research, for example – but this exploitation doesn’t come with the same high economic stakes that is attached to athletics.
Alternative Solution
The strongest counterargument to paying college athletes really lies with how the market can price in a student athlete’s contribution. The same market forces that govern professional sports are not as easily applied in college athletics. However, the difficult in designing and implementing a fair and reasonable compensation system is not an argument against doing it; just pointing out that it is difficult. Thus, paying college athletes should be allowed, and then the bright minds among the stakeholder groups can start the heavy lifting of figuring out what fair and equitable distribution looks like. The California law can be added to this an as extra layer – the stars among college athletes are free to pursue market forces for their gain, beyond whatever system is designed for compensation of all athletes.
Conclusion
College athletes should be paid for their work. First, the economic benefits of college athletics are significant, and they are not distributed in an equitable manner. Indeed, the iniquity of the distribution of this wealth serves to perpetuate systemic racism and reduce economic mobility within socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. Whatever sacred bonds might exist, whatever idealized notion of higher learning might persist, none of those arguments are strong enough to counter the powerful economic, social justice and distributive justice arguments in favor of paying college athletes in line with their contribution to economic outcomes associated with college sports.
Final Thoughts
The revision process and using this checklist has been helpful. The checklist provides structure to the revisions, and to the essay as a whole. Ensuring that all of the elements are present is a critical part of the process of crafting an effective argumentative essay. The structure keeps the writer honest, and allows for the full and proper development of the arguments, with appropriate supporting points.
References
Bokat-Lindell, S. (2019). Should College Athletes Be Allowed to Get Paid? Retrieved From https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/opinion/california-student-athletes-paid.html
De Piccioto, E. (2019). Should College Athletes Get Paid? Retrieved From https://www.theperspective.com/debates/sports/college-athletes-get-paid/
Gaydos, R. (2019). California governor signs bill allowing college athletes to capitalize on image, name and likeness. Retrieved From https://www.foxnews.com/sports/ncaa-paid-players-california-bill-law
Lemmons, M. (2017). College Athletes Getting Paid? Here Are Some Pros And Cons. Retrieved From https://www.huffpost.com/entry/college-athletes-getting-paid-here-are-some-pros-cons_b_58cfcee0e4b07112b6472f9a
Siegfried, J. J. (2015). The Case for Paying College Athletes. American Economic Association, 29(1), 115-138. Retrieved From https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.29.1.115
Yankah, E. (2015). Why N.C.A.A. Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid. Retrieved From https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/why-ncaa-athletes-shouldnt-be-paid