There are many interviews and articles debating this sue of whether or not college athletes should be paid. Weinstein argues that college athletes should be paid; too many of them spend years of their lives entertaining the public without ever receiving the lucre now associated with a professional career. However, unlike the pros, all college athletes should be paid the exact same wage, whether they are starting centers or benchmarks. In addition, every college league should have a draft in order to eliminate the illegal competition for talent, and scholarships should be for six years.
Many people say paying college athletes would be a mistake. In September of 2013, AY Edwards wrote an editorial on why paying college athletes would be a mistake. This editorial comes from the Journal Tribune, a well-known and respected news source. Edwards thesis is ‘ ‘The question of whether or not to pay college athletes has risen again recently, but as always, the answer to this sporadic, and at all times controversial proposal, is no”. The issue that AY Edwards is proposing is that college athletes already have a scholarship so they are basically getting paid.
Paying players is also a question of fairness. A motivating factor used by Edwards is equality. Equality is a big sue in the society we live in today. An issue Edward stated was “If basketball and football players are going to be paid, then what about the women’s swim team members, baseball team, gymnastics teams, or track and field athletes? ” Basically Edwards is just asking should all the athletes get paid, or just the ones that bring in the most money? Schools with smaller budgets cannot afford to pay all collegiate athletes.
AY concedes with the argument that it would cause many problems if college athletes were paid to play. On the other hand he also thinks that college athletes should get a percentage of the ales that their merchandise makes. However, he does believe they deserve a stipend. His logic and reasoning is fairly one-sided to try to persuade people that paying college athletes is wrong. Edwards does not remain on the topic of paying college athletes and is only concerned about making the reading to be against it. He has good facts for his reasoning against the topic.
These facts include the fact that they are normal young kids and should not get paid. Jones, on the other hand, disagrees with Edwards. Brent Jones wrote an editorial on rewarding college athletes with an education. The editorial was from USA today, which is a well-respected internet news source. Jones investigates why college athletes should get paid. Another way to look at paying college athletes is paying for their education. Jones thesis is “Just pay the players at market rate”. In other words college athletes would just be an open market.
But with that idea comes a lot of problems. It would turn athletes into employees, and only the wealthiest schools would be able to compete. Jones discussed why the NCAA doesn’t pay college athletes and the reason why they believe in paying their players. The NCAA has their best interest in the players and wants them to succeed in their academics as well as their sporting career. The ideology of paying them with an education is good, but when it comes down to it there are too many problems that come along with it.
One issue stated by Jones is that “A second NCAA proposal -to pay students on full scholarship a $2,000 stipend for incidental expenses- could cause more problems than it solves”. Evidence of this would be that big name school can afford this, but many could not. That is where the question of fairness and equality comes up again. Fairness seems to be a complicated problem in athletics. He also argues that the currency already used to play players is to common, a free education. Jones and Edwards agree that the form of payment should be some type of scholarship.
Edwards reasoning is that “The questions can go on and on, and there isn’t a simple answer other than no college oath let should be paid a salary’. The common ground in these articles is that no matter what, college athletes should get paid with some type of stipend. In August of 201 3, Twain Price wrote an article on why college athletes should not get paid to play. One reason why college athletes should not get paid is because they already have a scholarship to the university. Price says “l just look at it like they are already getting paid. Colleges athletes already get a free place to live, free books, and much more. In essence, Price has grown tired of debate after debate on whether college athletes should be drawing a paycheck from their college. “These college kids on full rides already get their school, lodging, and food paid for, which equals out to about SSL 20,000 over a four-year period” (Price). Many people think they spend all their time dedicated to their sport and should get paid to play, while others argue that they should not. Many people think why should college athletes be treated any different that regular college kids?
I mean sure they represent the school and are more publicly known but should not all kids be treated the same? If some football player says he doesn’t have enough money to buy new shoes I bet there is another college kid in the same boat. They are college kids; they are supposed to be poor. On the other hand, student athletes do spend an extreme amount of time on athletic functions, which takes away their focus from school. Although the controversy over student athletes being paid is a relatively new idea, the tater could become very controversial if it is left unaddressed.
This issue has become more pressing as more and more student athletes are found guilty of taking bribes from professional sports agencies while they are still in college. As I have analyzed these two articles hope that you will have a better understanding of what am trying to get across. Both articles were very well set up to persuade the reader on why college athletes should be paid to pay and why they should not. After carefully analyzing both arguments Both Authors used many facts that still remain in my head and tot sounded like credible people that knew what they were talking about.