Untitled
Injustice
For years, Division I athletes have been pouring their hearts out day after day, week after week, to protect the pride and tradition of their universities. With television contracts and shoe deals alone, the athletes are really bringing in the money and other forms of revenue. Sure, you can say that the typical athletes scholarship is enough to compensate, but are they? A true athlete plays the game simply because he loves it. When you're at the Division I level of sports, it is more or less a business and it is their job to make money for the school. Also, these athletes give up many freedoms. For a given number of hours per week, they give their blo ...view middle of the document...
(Wulf) Of course this is a controversial topic, and there are obviously two sides to this argument: a side for and a side against the argument. "It is true that student-athletes aren't your typical college students. They are unable to deposit that measly check most us work toward outside academic duties. Time and physical constraints do not allow these individuals living in a fish bowl to actively pursue a part-time job." (Henry) Judy Runge, a coach for the women's basketball team at the University of Oregon said, "I don't know that I even care for the idea because it professionalizes college sports." Why? The athlete is not asking for a yearly salary or weekly paycheck, but just a stipend or allowance. The only item that will make it professional would be making a college athlete to sign a contract saying if you perform "X" amount then we will pay you "Y" amount. I believe that Judy Runge explains the most common point of view of someone that really stands against college athletes being paid. I hate to say it, but her thoughts and her comment seem to be weak. My side of the argument of paying college athletes is far more superior and well supported with evidence. Mike Belloti, the head football coach at the University of Oregon says, "You already subsidize athletics…it's not going to make it anymore of a professional sport by giving them $100 per month to enable them to have a lifestyle that's not even the average of some students." (Henry) The average student can hold jobs and afford to experience the real college life, while the athlete spends his free time in the weight room or cramming for a final. According to NCAA rules, Section 2, Title V reads, "It is a violation of the NCAA rules for athletes to accept money or gifts while intending to remain eligible." (NCAA) The NCAA is afraid that boosters and friends would offer athletes jobs, the possibility of a "no show" job. So the ability to hold a job is not possible. The athletes cannot work, even a second, and still be paid in wages. Most college athletes are on scholarships and receive money for their education, room and board. However, my point is that these athletes don't have an opportunity to make money for their personal needs. Mike Belloti also mentions that, "Student-athletes deserve a little more money because they don't get the opportunity to work during the year and their time frame is busy. Their scholarships cover tuition, books and board, but when you talk about phone bills, transportation, entertainment, laundry, toiletries, etc.- Student athletes just don't have the opportunity." (Henry) We run into another deciding question of, what if college athletes were to be paid? Where would the money come from and is it possible to pay them all? College athletics is already a billion-dollar industry and has been for quite some time. The reason of course for the attent...
