Paid to Play Essays

Submitted By hunteremery34
Words: 947
Pages: 4

Hunter Emery
Jill Reglin
WRIT 122
Spring 2013
Paid to Play?
In 2011, the NCAA declared to pay division 1 athletes a $2000 stipend per semester. Some colleges can't afford to pay their players, so at the end of the year this was no longer in effect. Paying the players no longer makes college an amateur sports league, which breaks tradition. Many of these athletes are already on scholarship, therefore, they technically are already getting paid. Most colleges pay their athletes' room and board, as well. People argue that being a division 1 athlete is considered a full-time job, which may be true. Lets say an average college student working 30-40 hours a week at a minimum wage job. Compare that with a division 1 athlete having a full-ride scholarship, books, and room and board paid for. That entirely is considered a free education with zero debt of student loans. That average college student working 30-40 hours a week for four years straight, while having to pay rent, food, and other expenditures. This accumulated would leave an average college student thousands of dollars in debt.
Paying college athletes would leave a competitive disadvantage for small schools. This means having to pay both male and female athletes. But most college athletic programs are already losing profit, which becomes almost impossible to pay players equally. Speaking of equality, do all athletes get paid from all sports? Stop and think. Men's football and basketball teams are usually the programs to generate the most profit. Other programs such as baseball, or men's lacrosse don't nearly make a substantial profit like football or basketball. The wealth would never be spread equally among players of different sports. It's not like football players work harder than baseball players at all. They are division 1 athletes putting in the same time and effort as others. This is Capitalism. Not everything is equal.
Though television revenues are making millions of dollars a year recording big school college games. And the players receive none of that. Arguments against mine; according to an ESPN analyst, “Let me declare up front I wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in distributing the funds equitably or even paying every college athlete. I'm interested in seeing the people who produce the revenue share a teeny, tiny slice of it. That's right, football and men's basketball players get paid; lacrosse, field hockey, softball, baseball, and soccer players get nothing” (Wilbon). What Wilbon is explaining is that, no one cares to watch other college sports besides football and men's basketball. Nothing is equal in the world.
What is worked hard for pays off in the end and that's what these college-athletes are doing.
Most division 1 athletes will grow into professionals and be drafted into the big leagues. They are already at an advantage of making millions of dollars when being a star athlete. If free education and the amount of clothing-apparel given to you for free isn't enough for you to dedicate yourself to the sport you love to play, something is wrong with you. I also believe that a college-athlete could take out six hours of time during the week to work at the school library or in the cafeteria. They would be paid minimum wage like everyone else. There is always time for everything, and if you can't make up for it then you're not ready for the big leagues.
The NCAA is a multi-billion dollar industry that generated over $845 billion last year in 2012. To an extent of my argument against college-athletes being paid-to-play, I believe some of the money being generated from college sports could in return cover college-athletes health-insurance and give them