It is a subject that has been around for a long period of time, and is owe receiving light on the matter. The problem with this is where would the funds come from? Also, paying athletes would take away the fact that they play for the love Of the game. Finally, it is not fair to smaller not as ‘competitive’ schools. According to Kristin Doss in “The Problem with Paying College Athletes”, “The NCAA released data showing that only 14 programs are turning a profit without having to rely on institutional support. This means that only 14 colleges in the U. S. Re making a profit every year, without the deed for financial aid from the money off of student fees, or direct money from the University itself. In text 3 paragraph 5, it says, OSI (Ohio State University) needs over $22 million from the booster club, interest off their endowment and royalty fees in order to balance the budget. This is one of America’s major universities, and they cannot afford to support their own programs without relying on direct payment, how can they afford to pay athletes in their sports? In retrospect, the money is there, but it is not there for the sole purpose to pay collegiate athletes.
Another issue we face with the payment of college athletes is the idea that paying them would make the players compete for the wrong reasons. They would no longer be playing for the love of the game, but for the money they can potentially make. Text 2 paragraph 5 “For most of the past 150 years, playing for the love of the game rather than profit has been a powerful ideal. ” When you watch football on a Saturday, you can guarantee you will see every player trying his hardest on every play, no matter what. Now on a Sunday, you’ll see the difference in play, ND notice players take plays off, or simply not trying on plays.
If we allowed collegiate athletes to receive payment, it would result in the same type of play. Text 2 paragraph 6 ‘”A gentleman never competes for money- Walter Camp” tells us that 50 years ago, college players wouldn’t have wanted money, and wouldn’t ask for it. I think this is the main concerns with the fans of collegiate sports and this issue. Finally, the payment of athletes would give big-name schools an unfair advantage over smaller schools. Text 3 paragraph 9 “What about a school like Western Kentucky… Takes $8. Million to balance their budget” Any smaller school in the Division 1 part of the NCAA is no doubt a large money school. But that doesn’t mean that universities such as Florida, Alabama, Oregon, or Nebraska don’t have a better shot at recruiting athletes to come play for them, due to a larger amount of payment. Text 3 page 2 paragraph 5 “Playing for Florida is going to give you greater opportunity to make more off merchandise than playing for Western Michigan. ” Obviously if you play at a higher school, your products will be better known and bought.
But the athlete that puts in the same amount of work as the athlete getting paid more and less work is not fair. In conclusion, do not think that college athletes should be paid. They already have scholarships and food; why else would they need money? Obviously they need money for expenditures and other small things, but not $6,000 worth of things. There?s not a solid background for the money to come from, money would take away playing for the right reasons, and finally it’s not fair to smaller schools who can’t afford to pay their athletes like the big-named schools can.