# data[].attributes.body
cons  #1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The debate rages on: Should college athletes be paid to play their sport? Read our take on both sides of the argument and watch our accompanying video here!

Originally Posted: Mar 20, 2017

Should college athletes be paid? People who think college student-athletes should be paid often say the students' names and images are used on products and in advertising, among other things, so they should receive some of the profits. Those who say college student-athletes should not be paid argue that they receive scholarships as a form of payment for their talents. Then there are plenty of other questions: Would athletes be paid differently depending on the sport they play? How do you quantify the true worth of a college sports team, especially if it's making the school much more popular overall and bringing in lots of students? Where would the money even come from? The debate could go on and on. Here's a look at each side.

Why student-athletes should get paid

Being a college student-athlete is a full-time job, bouncing between the weight room, the court/field, classes, and film sessions. College athletics are extracurricular activities, but the schedules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) tournaments require an extended period in which the student-athletes must miss school. Not only do they miss class, but they are absent for nationally televised games that make a lot of money and receive millions of viewers, according to Marc Edelman in his article " 21 Reasons Why Student-Athletes Are Employees and Should Be Allowed to Unionize."

Since student-athletes also bring in revenue for their team and college or university, especially in the championship games, those who debate in favor of paying them say the students could receive a small portion of the profits. Yes, pay would vary, just as the universities with the more successful teams receive more television time or money than those with less successful teams. College football and men's basketball programs earn far more than any other athletic program, so these athletes would likely earn more as well. This may not be considered fair pay, but many of those who argue in support of paying college players point out that team popularity and consumers generally determine what is "fair." These sports also tend to support other less popular sports that do not bring in a lot of money on their own.

Student-athletes are the ones working hard out on the court and field. Coaches might have a big effect on a team, but it is up to the athletes to get it done. Coaches receive bonuses for breaking records, reaching the offseason, and winning the big games; the athletes receive none of it, writes Tyson Hartnett for HuffPost. Most profits from college athletics do not go toward academics. Instead, they go to the coaches, athletic directors, and some administrators, reports Edelman. Student-athletes do not need to receive huge salaries like their coaches; rather, they could still be paid a reasonable amount relative to how much the program makes. Scholarships often cover most of the student-athletes' books and room expenses, but even few extra hundred dollars per year could compensate for the lack of time these students have to earn spending money at a regular part-time job, argues Harnett.

It's also important to note that college student-athletes are not only a part of a sports team; they are a part of the college or university's advertising team. For example, the "Flutie effect" is used to describe a surge in college admission following a big sports win. It's named for Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie; he won the Heisman Trophy in 1984, and the College's admissions rose significantly in subsequent years-though the extent of Flutie's impact has been largely refuted by BC officials since then. Still, colleges and universities use their athletic success to promote their school and entice potential applicants. Student-athletes would be paid for this and all the additional benefits they provide for their schools.

A timeout of the regular season college football game between the University of Michigan at the University of Iowa
📸: Madisen Martinez

Why student-athletes should not get paid

In 2013, survey expert John Dennis found that 69% of the public is opposed to paying student-athletes. (This proposed payment would be in addition to the scholarships given in men's football and basketball programs.) If scholarships were taken out of the deal, and only salaries were given, then it would be more fair and affordable for the university, right? Wrong. If salaries were given, then these college student-athletes would have to pay taxes. Depending on the student-athlete's income, those taxes could be high enough to reduce what they earn until they can barely cover tuition, according to John R. Thelin in his article "Here's Why We Shouldn't Pay College Athletes."

Those who opposed paying college student-athletes say scholarships are the best option; there is no question as to what the scholarship money is going toward. Cash or a salary could be spent on wants rather than necessities, potentially leading the athletes into a debt they would not have with the benefit of a scholarship. Furthermore, those who debate against paying student-athletes say it would change the very nature of college athletics. College student-athletes are given a rare opportunity. It's difficult to earn a position on a college team. Though a dream for many, only about 7% of high school athletes move onto the bigger stage. Another 2% of these athletes reach the Division I level, reports Dave Anderson in his article " Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Not Be Paid."

If payments were involved, athletes would be given incentive to commit to the college or university with the highest offer. The next year, they may transfer to another school with an even higher offer. Before you know it, these college sports would be 100% a business. This new "business" could also lead to the downfall of other college programs. The money to pay athletes must come from somewhere, which might put the least-popular college programs at risk of being cut. That, in turn, can deprive other students of their chance to gain the education and experience at the college of their dreams, since their desired program will no longer be offered, says Anderson.

Finally, even though these college student-athletes may be playing at an advanced level, they still aren't playing professionally, Anderson notes. It is not their job to play sports; it is an extracurricular activity that is pursued while pursuing a higher education. Student-athletes are going to school to learn, and many are lucky enough to do so for reduced cost, given the often generous athletic scholarships. If these athletes were paid, it would change their motives as students. They are still in college-which is a privilege in itself-while pursuing their dreams of playing a sport.

What do you think?

Whether student-athletes should be paid is an ongoing debate often brought up during championship seasons, especially the college football playoffs and the basketball post-season. What's your view of this heated debate? Will a salary for college-athletes ever come to be? It's up to the NCAA to decide if they'll break away from their current model of collegiate sports, in which "the young men and women competing on the field or court are students first, athletes second."
Are you a hopeful student-athlete? Start exploring colleges and searching for scholarships for your sport on CollegeXpress now!
Like what you're reading?

Join the CollegeXpress community! Create a free account and we'll notify you about new articles, scholarship deadlines, and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Student-Athletes Be Paid to Play? Both Sides of the Debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The debate rages on: Should college athletes be paid to play their sport? Read our take on both sides of the argument and watch our accompanying video here!

# data[].attributes.body
article #9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student Athletes SHOULD NOT Be Paid, It's A Privilege, Not A Job

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
They already have it easier than everyone else.

# data[].attributes.headline
Top Ten Reasons why College Athletes Should Not Be Paid

# data[].attributes.subject
Top Ten Reasons why College Athletes Should Not Be Paid

# data[].attributes.body
Google.com #5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Not Be Paid

Collegiate sports are big money makers, at least that's what most people think, right? The truth is, the only collegiate sports that really make anything for the colleges are football and basketball, and only the top championship teams really bring in money for their schools. Because the general public sees these teams as cash cows, the debate as to if college athletes should be paid is brought up during every championship season, whether it is the football national championship or March Madness, which occurs each year to determine the champion of college basketball.

There are a number of reasons why people believe college athletes should be paid. For instance, serious college athletes spend more time practicing their sports and playing the game as most people spend at work each week. In other words, being a college athlete is the equivalent of a full time job. Speaking of jobs, since college athletes are spending so much time on the field or court and in the classroom, they don't have the time to actually work, so many of them have a difficult time making ends meet.

This information certainly supports the fact that college athletes should be paid, but there is a lot more to the debate than this. Just as there are so many reasons a college athlete should be paid for their skills, there are just as many reasons to not pay these athletes. Here are the top 10 reasons college athletes should not be paid:

Finally, if college athletes start getting paid, it would simply ruin the college sports industry. Athletes play sports in college for two reason: the love of the game and the change to make it to the pros. If these students start getting paid, college and university athletic departments would turn into enterprises, and this would tarnish the college athletic system.

All of the shenanigans that occur in the pros would likely happen in college sports if student athletes started getting paid. Students would start holding out on contracts because they want more money, unions would spring up that would focus on the rights of college athletes, and there would be lockouts if these athletes are not happy with the university they are playing for. People watch college sports because they don't have these things associated with them, and adding payments to athletes would bring all of these to the forefront.

At it's heart, college athletics is the way to turn boys and girls into men and women. It teaches students how to be disciplined and driven. Fans do not want to turn on ESPN on Saturday afternoon and see a labor strike at their local university because the students don't like that they aren't getting paid more. Instead, they want to see these players hit the field or the court, play without the distractions of cash, and do it for the love of the game.

Conclusion

The debate of whether or not it is appropriate or fair to pay college athletes rages on. Though there are a couple of compelling reasons why college athletes should be paid, there are many other reasons why they shouldn't. Paying a student athlete would put most universities in dire financial straights, it would cause other programs to be cut, and could ultimately unfairly cause an imbalance in the college spots system as some schools would certainly have more money to spend than others.

Student athletes already receive benefits for playing college sports including a free education, housing, meals, travel, networking and other perks, which give them a huge boost up in life when compared to their peers. If student athletes start getting paid, however, they would not only continue to likely receive these benefits, they would receive many more. This could lead to even more corruption in an already corrupt system and it would create many more issues than are already in existence.

Whether or not the NCAA ultimately decides to pay student athletes is likely not a decision that would come down any time soon, and since the NCAA is a non-profit itself, it is unlikely to happen at all. Until any decision is made, student athletes are best to do what their predecessors have done...play their sport simply for the love of the game.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Not Be Paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Not Be Paid Collegiate sports are big money makers, at least that's what most people think, right? The truth is, the only collegiate sports that really make anything for the colleges are football and basketball, and only the top championship teams really ...

# data[].attributes.body
5 reasons why not to/effects of paying college athletes #6

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1: They are getting a multi-thousand-dollar college education for free
Most college athletes get their college paid for on a scholarship. That money amount, depending on the college, can range from $75,000 to $200,000 over a period of 4 years. This is a substantial amount of money for one person to be given on a scholarship. If paid on salary, the athlete will most likely blow the money, and they will not be able to afford their college.
2. It can/will create tension between the players
If one player gets paid more than the rest, then how is that fair? If the star of the team is paid more than a second stringer, then that will possibly cause tension between the two. This will lead to missed blocks, missed opportunities, and less chemistry between the overall team. It can also lead to players leaving the team.
3. If one sports program gets paid, they all will demand to be paid
Lets say that the football program will start paying athletes on salary. What about the women's basketball team? Or the men's basketball team? Are they excluded because they don't bring in as much money as the football team does? The problem is that if one program gets paid, all of them will demand to be paid. That leads to another reason that college athletes don't need to be paid.
4. Athletes are going to want to go where the money is, not where they fit better
Like anyone else would, college athletes are going to go where the money is. The higher the money amount splashed in their face, the wider their eyes open, and the quicker they are to decide. This is a problem, because they'll decide without much thought. This means that they will go somewhere that they may not fit as well at because they offered them more money. This is not fair to the smaller schools, because they will never get any great players, and this will lead to the demise of the smaller programs, and the continued rise of the bigger programs.
5. Where will colleges get the money to pay the athletes?
The money that all of the athletic programs bring in are all put to some sort of use. They go to afford the lights, the concessions, the equipment and many other things that any successful sports program needs. If college athletes were to be paid on salary, where would the college get the money from? This is a problem that especially smaller schools would have to go through. The college would not be able to afford paying all athletes on salary, and not be able to afford to run the stadiums lights and everything.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Reasons College Athletes Should Not be Paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1: They are getting a multi-thousand-dollar college education for free Most college athletes get their college paid for on a scholarship. That money amount, depending on the college, can range from $75,000 to $200,000 over a period of 4 years. This is a substantial amount of money for one person to be given on a scholarship.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cnn on why college athletes shouldnt be paid

# data[].attributes.subject
Cnn on why college athletes shouldnt be paid

# data[].attributes.body
video #4 (8.6mil subs)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ex-college basketball player: NCAA shouldn't pay players

# data[].attributes.headline
 Paying college athletes is not the answer

# data[].attributes.subject
 Paying college athletes is not the answer

# data[].attributes.body
Statepress.com #2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NCAA should incentivize education, not paid employment

By

Photo by Angel Jimenez | The State PressAlex Coil | 09/29/2019 4:24pm
"Even worse, imagine athletes just coming to college for the money." Illustration published on Sunday, Sept. 29, 2019.

In the entirety of college football's 150-year history, college athletes have not been paid, and it needs to stay that way.

Earlier this month, California lawmakers approved a bill, that the governor has not yet signed, that would allow college athletes to profit off their name and likeness.

Tim Tebo w, a former college quarterback who won the Heisman, went on ESP N's First Take to share his belief that paying student athletes is the wrong approach.

Tebow is exactly right.

The phenomenon around paying college athletes and those driving the movement forward are forgetting the reason one goes to college: to get an education.

In an era striving for competitive balance, how would the NCAA keep from giving schools like Kentucky and Alabama even more of a competitive advantage than schools like Valparaiso and Florida Gulf Coast?

The issue gets complicated when taking into consideration how the salary difference between the quarterback on the football team and the third-string goalie on the lacrosse team gets decided.

Even worse, imagine athletes just coming to college for the money.

"You're going to see bigger schools use (paying athletes) as a recruiting advantage," said Marco Salas a redshirt freshman offensive lineman on the football team. "I think some people are going to come just to make money."

We call college athletes amateurs. Oxford's definition of amateur is "a person who engages in a pursuit, especially a sport, on an unpaid basis."The keyword there is unpaid.

The history of the word amateur dates back to the French, from the Latin, word "amator", which means lover, and also from "amare"which means to love.

Essentially, the word amateur is based on the word love. College athletes should be playing their sport for the love of the game, not the money that would be given to them if we decide to give them a salary.

Rules should not be made for the fractional minority, and in this instance only two percent of athletes play professional sports. The expected career span of that two percent is 10 years, three and a half years in the NFL.

An appalling 80 percent of retired NFL players go broke within three years of retirement, 60 percent in the NBA within five years.

This is why the NCAA and its member institutions should implement a "stay and learn" rule.

This rule should state that if athletes choose to come to college, they will get paid in scholarships that last the entirety of the educational process and the athlete must stay in school until they earn a degree, associates at minimum, in the area of study they choose. If they choose not to go to college and play professionally, that is the risk they take.

By not forcing athletes to play in college, the argument for paying them goes away.

"I'd value the education," Salas said. "That money (from going pro) is going to run out sometime, but the degree will always be there for you. You can use that in the long term."

We need to protect the future of these athletes by arming them with the free education they choose to pursue. These athletes need a backup plan in case of a career-ending injury or a more common issue, the lack of talent to play professionally.

Look at college athletics for what it is and should always be, a high-pressure learning environment and an avenue to earn an education. A much more fun extension of the classroom if you will. After all, they are called student-athletes.
Editor's note: The opinions presented in this column are the author's and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Reach the columnist at ancoil@asu.edu or follow @anc2018 on Twitter.

Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 500 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.

Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: Paying college athletes is not the answer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California lawmakers approved a bill that legalizes payment of college athletes. Instead of paying them, institutions need to focus on educating them.

# data[].attributes.body
#8

# data[].attributes.body
#7

# data[].attributes.headline
Video: Tim Tebow Rails Against College Athletes Getting Paid 

# data[].attributes.subject
Video: Tim Tebow Rails Against College Athletes Getting Paid 

# data[].attributes.body
statepress.com # 3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tim Tebow rails against the California amateurism law | First Take

# data[].attributes.body
#11

# data[].attributes.body
#10

# data[].attributes.body
#12 image