Michael Model, Joseph Beckman and Kenneth J. Cooper provide two opposing viewpoints that seem to take certain similarities with extensive and strong arguments towards the issue of college athletes being paid. Both articles suggest and attack the notion if college athletes should be considered employees and be compensated for their work in play. In other words they both seem to explore the exploitation of student-athletes and conclude in two different ways.
In the article, “Workers’ compensation and collegiate athletes: the debate over the pay for play model: a counterpoint. Both Michael Model and Joseph Beckman scrutinize the idea written in an article by Christopher Hayden who anticipated that college athletes “should be entitled to a monthly stipend characterized as part of their scholarships”. As an opposing argument, the writers offer up “judicial rejection of workers’ compensation claims of collegiate athletes posed by federal antitrust law”.
Michael and Joseph seem to educate us on the fact that there are many “pay- for-play advocates” that have longed for student athletes to gain worker’s imposition but are faced with many judicial issues in fact, the writers offer case studies throughout the article that what they describe as “flawed workers’ compensation cases [that] have formed the predicate for recognizing college athletes as employees of higher education institutions. The writers comply with the other side of the argument by reversing and deciphering the messages given by concluding that the universities are being exploited being that their primary concern is to educate first by contract. Michael and Joseph place themselves in a position where they gain the knowledge of the opposing side to the debate; they offer substantial amount of proof to their claims and deny the aspect that college athletes should be paid.
Thus, remarking that it is nearly impossible for student athletes to be paid, the writers feel as though to eliminate further discrepancy with public policy, and legal issues with federal antitrust law and title IX compliance, contracts from these educational institutions should initially “be more appropriately regarded as a contract to educate rather than a contract of employment.
Other problems seem to occur on these two writers’ radar – predicting that “paying a salary to athletes in revenue-producing sports, such as football, would place an institution’s athletic association in an awkward position with regard to the non-revenue-producing sports”. These writers’ arguments are definitely convincing and in fact make sense. Although, without being said I feel as though their perspective and responses to Hayden were fair but a bit too complicated. Michael and Joseph defined how it would not work to be a student-athlete and receive workers’ compensation.
They attacked on every ground Hayden touched upon – concluding strongly they mention that researchers who address the issue of “the relationship between athletic success and increased enrollments and endowments, have been inconclusive. ” They provide an example stating that the links that the researchers have been investigating such as: “athletics, academics, and educational contributions in institutions could establish no relationship between athletic success and total educational contributions in a study of eighty-seven universities covering ten year period. ”