Should College Athletes Be Paid Analysis

Do you think college athletes should be paid? This controversy is debated in Opposing Viewpoints: Sports and Athletes. Al Woods titles his argument College Athletes Should Be Paid because the schools are making money off the players, some athletes are being paid under the table, and athletes are giving up on education. However, Krikor Meshefejian titles his argument College Students Should Not Be Paid because students receive scholarships, the payment system is “problematic”, and the experience is payment enough(98-99.) Meshefejian has the better argument that students should not be paid. One reason why Meshefejian has the better argument is his credibility on this topic. Al Woods wrote the weaker opposing viewpoint that students should be paid. Al Woods was a college athlete at Louisiana State University; making him a bias author. He only sees the struggles and problems to his argument. Krikor Meshefejian wrote

Woods’ uses support, but has weak reasons. Without the strength of his reasoning, he’s left with little support to use. He supports his reasons by comparing the athletes to “slaves” (88). When the sport should be played because the athlete enjoys it. Meshefejian uses support for all of his reasons. He explains the students aren’t hired to play the sport and they are going to a college to receive an education (95). He points out that student athletes tend to choose a school based on their past success in a particular sport and paying them would result in the students making profit on their past success (99). This is a great example why the paying process would be problematic. Since the title IX federal regulations are required, the payment for female and male athletes would have to be equal and not discriminate females (97). Meshefejian states “ The college experience, a student-athlete’s educational experience should be about more than just dollars and cents”