I understand each side of favoring or opposing college competitors being compensated. As of this controversial topic being colorless and bias, I respectively oppose college athletes being compensated for a number of reasons:
· It deviates the focused nature and energy of sporting competitions ― The college players will begin to establish a "professional athlete frame of mind" where their main thought process or concentration is being paid. This will instigate them to lose that thirst, desire, and enthusiasm that all fans, staff, and families thrive to watch in all collegiate games. It will be exchanged for lazy plays and good for nothing efforts that fans, staff, and families see at some point from professional players.
· It will discredit
…show more content…
According to Slack and Parent (2006), "Reward power comes from one person's control of another person's reward." The larger the reward and the greater the importance of the reward to the recipient, the more power the person who gives the reward can exercise" (Pg. 181). The Big 12 conference organized rewards to profit those who 'have', excluding other sports organizations. The Big 12 did not disperse the money from its TV contracts evenly; half of all the TV income are dispersed equally; the other half depended on TV appearances. In any case; imagine a scenario where an NCAA football team is not surpassing during that playing season. Does that revenue go to another sports organization who is exceeding? That is what took place with TAMU for a few years. The Aggies were dealt with as a have-not, sadly being a casualty of imbalance income distribution and rewarded power, tailoring them to switch conferences. Smaller universities that do not have the proper funds of athletics would cause populated universities to receive an even more increased pay. This would cause lower-end institutions to struggle, even more, resulting in a bad case of the haves and the