Should College Athletes Be Paid? A Rhetorical Analysis
This paper presents a rhetorical analysis of Allen Sack's article "Should College Athletes Be Paid?" published in The Christian Science Monitor. Sack, a former Notre Dame football player and academic, argues that while athletes should not receive direct pay, they are being exploited and deserve expanded benefits — including medical coverage, workers' compensation, and entrepreneurial rights such as endorsements and agent representation. The paper examines Sack's intended audience, his credibility as a former athlete and scholar, and how his nuanced position challenges the NCAA's longstanding commitment to amateurism. Sack's central claim is that college sports must either return to true amateurism or extend professional-style benefits to its athletes.
- Introduction: Overview of Sack's argument and background
- Sack's Core Argument: Why Sack opposes direct pay for athletes
- Proposed Athlete Benefits: Endorsements, agents, and entrepreneurial rights
- Audience and Publication Context: Christian Science Monitor readership and rhetorical tone
- NCAA Amateurism and Sack's Credentials: Timing, ethos, and NCAA founding philosophy
- Conclusion: Sack's balanced call for NCAA self-reflection
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The analysis stays focused on the rhetorical dimensions of Sack's argument — audience, purpose, credibility, and tone — rather than simply summarizing the source article.
- The paper identifies a genuinely nuanced authorial position: Sack neither defends the status quo nor calls for direct pay, which the writer correctly highlights as central to understanding the piece's rhetorical strategy.
- Context is used effectively — noting the timing of the article relative to the NCAA basketball tournament shows understanding of kairos as a rhetorical concept.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates source-based rhetorical analysis by consistently attributing claims to the author under examination and distinguishing between what Sack argues and how and why he argues it. The writer's identification of the subtitle ("Go all amateur, or give them pro-benefits") as a crystallization of Sack's thesis is a strong close-reading move.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by introducing Sack and his position, then unpacks his specific policy proposals, addresses the intended audience and publication venue, and closes by situating the argument within the broader history of NCAA amateurism. The structure follows the source article's logic closely, making it an appropriate rhetorical summary-analysis hybrid suitable for an introductory undergraduate course.
Introduction
In "Should College Athletes Be Paid?" Allen Sack argues that colleges and universities are exploiting their athletes, but that athletes should still not receive direct payment. A professor at a major university and a former college football player for Notre Dame, Sack has also written a book on the subject titled Counterfeit Amateurism: An Athlete's Journey Through the Sixties to the Age of Academic Capitalism. The phrase "counterfeit amateurism" describes the progression of college sports from a purely amateur athletic model to a large-scale commercial enterprise, yet one in which athletes rarely receive the full benefits of their success. Sack would prefer a return to true amateur college sports, free from today's massive media attention, but acknowledges that the current trend is toward what he calls the "sports entertainment empire" (Sack 2).
Sack's Core Argument
Paying athletes is unnecessary and would not necessarily help them achieve their academic goals, Sack contends. Athletes are already "essentially paid to play" because they receive scholarships (Sack 2). Sack argues that paying athletes directly would also undermine the foundational philosophy of the NCAA, which has been committed to the ethics of amateurism since its founding in 1906. Most schools could not afford to pay their athletes directly in any case, he notes. Rather than pursuing direct payment, Sack believes reform should focus on expanding the rights and protections available to college athletes within the existing amateur framework.
Proposed Athlete Benefits
According to Sack, athletes should instead receive medical benefits, workers' compensation, and — most controversially — "the right to engage in the same kinds of entrepreneurial ventures that are the stock and trade of celebrity coaches" (Sack 2). By this, Sack means that college athletes should be allowed to hire agents to plan their careers, endorse products, serve as celebrity spokespeople, receive payment for speaking engagements, and earn revenues from college-based merchandise or publications that feature their image. The subtitle of Sack's article — "Go all amateur, or give them pro-benefits" — neatly encapsulates his position. He urges the NCAA to consider the rights of athletes and the implications of allowing forms of compensation that would not directly interfere with their education or their amateur status on the field.
Audience and Publication Context
Sack's article appears in print and online versions of The Christian Science Monitor, not a sports-focused publication. Its audience generally consists of curious readers interested in social justice issues as well as fans of college sports. Reader backgrounds will vary, but most will be American. For this reason, the article is brief and written in plain language, free of technical jargon. The audience may hold strong existing beliefs about the issue, or may approach it with an open mind. Because Sack's argument is balanced, nuanced, and complex, readers across a range of viewpoints will find it easy to engage with. He is not arguing against compensation — quite the contrary. Sack argues that athletes do deserve better treatment and financial compensation, even if that compensation does not come directly from playing or from the NCAA itself. The purpose of the article is to inspire self-reflection among NCAA stakeholders about the rights and well-being of college athletes.
Conclusion
Sack's rhetorical approach is balanced and carefully positioned, appealing to readers across the debate. Rather than calling for radical change, he asks NCAA stakeholders to reflect on the rights of athletes within a system that profits enormously from their participation. His argument — that athletes deserve expanded protections and entrepreneurial freedoms even without direct pay — offers a middle path between the status quo and full professionalization. By grounding his position in personal experience, academic expertise, and a genuine respect for the ideals of amateurism, Sack produces a rhetorically credible and thought-provoking contribution to the ongoing debate over college athlete compensation.
Work Cited
Sack, Allen. "Should College Athletes Be Paid?" Christian Science Monitor. 7 March 2008.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.