In his article “Should College Athletes be Paid? Why, They Already Are”, Seth Davis is able to effectively argue why Branch’s argument in “The Shame of College Sports” is incorrect through his use of rhetorical strategies to the Sports Illustrated audience. Davis’ use of ethos addresses Branch’s trustworthiness in what he includes or does not include in his article. Through his use of logos Davis is able to point out why Branch’s logic does not add up. Finally, Davis’ accusatory tone asserts his opinion of Branch’s writing, which tears down why Branch’s own article is flawed.
Ryan Vanderfords’ article published in the Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal explores this issue of whether or not college athletes should be paid beyond what they receive in scholarships. Vanderford is currently a law associate at a law firm in Los Angeles, California. He played sports throughout high school and college, so the author can relate to this topic. The payment of college athletes has become a more prominent issue in today’s society then it has been in the past. He argues that at major universities, student athletes help the school generate their revenue and therefore should be paid.
Frank Deford has numerous opinionated claims in his article; however, he lacks organization, proof to his claims, and a professional tone. Deford first reminds the audience of the speech he gave in the past about collegiate athletes being the only students to receive genuine scholarships. Next, He explains Brand’s stance on the issue. Brand
The debate of whether not college athletes should be paid has been going on for a couple decades now. With college institutions gaining revenue from football bowl games and March Madness in basketball, Dr. Dennis Johnson thinks that “There now is a clamoring for compensating both football and basketball players beyond that of an athletic scholarship” (2012). On the other hand, Dr. John Acquaviva is satisfied with the current college system in which colleges provide athletic scholarships which reward a free college education in return for representing the university’s athletic program (2012). Dr. Johnson then follows up Dr. Aquaviva’s claim with his five selling points for the paying of college athletes and Dr. Aquaviva provides five points
College football, as an “amateur” sport, produces nearly $3.5 billion dollars a year, but the young men who play the game, primarily African American, don’t see a penny of revenue. Yes, student athletes get tuition, room and board, and lots of Nike, Adidas or Under Armour gear, but they’re really free labor. The world refers to them as “student athletes,”. There are three different levels of competition under the NCAA. Division I, Division II and Division III are the three levels associated with the NCAA.
College sports is one of the best-known entertainments around the world. But for the athletes, they are students first then athletes second. For college student-athletes, there are a variety of scholarships and grants to help pay for college or college debt. However, some critics say that student-athletes should be paid a salary like pro athletes would, with help from scholarships or grants. The authors of, College Athletes are being Educated, not Exploited, Val Ackerman and Larry Scott, argue that student-athletes are already paid by free education and other necessities.
Are they students or employees? They spend more time with the sport than in school. Student athletes should be acknowledged for their performances. College athletes should be paid to play because they bring money into the school, advertisement, and they perform the same tasks of pros. College kids bring in thousands of dollars every game day.
Should college athletes be paid? Annotated Bibliography Benedykiuck, Mike. “The Blue Line: College athletes should be paid.” Dailyfreepress.
Scholarships and recruiting have been around as early as the 1880s, when football went from a fun backyard family game, to a popular, profitable sport. Scholarships were funded by school’s fraternities, and the ultimate goal was to motivate players to take their game to the next level. Along with scholarships taking place, The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was introduced in 1906. According to the article “History of Sports Scholarships”, the NCAA instilled rules to protect the student athlete from exploitation, meaning that the athlete shall not be paid in any way for their talent. In his ESPN article,
Since it’s founding over a century ago, the NCAA has developed from a minute form of extra-curricular involvement offered to students, to a dominant entertainment industry nationwide. The growing success of this program has promoted a genuinely competitive nature, deteriorating the previous category of “amateurism”. Being that it has become such a popular program, the demand for student-athlete dedication has become exuberant. The development has established sports as the central focus for student-athletes as practices and competitions amount to 40+ hour workweeks for them. Such a heavy involvement in addition to school prevents the student-athletes from being able to work, leaving them unable to form an income to afford living expenses that scholarships cannot cover.
After graduating from High School one may choose to further his or her education through college. People do this for many reasons. Some people do it for professional benefits, while others do it for sports athletics. This paper will be focusing on those who do go to college for athletic benefits. Specifically, this is focusing on how these college athletes do not get paid and why they should be paid.
College athletes put in a lot of time, effort, and work into the sport they’ve played since they were young, but they aren’t getting paid for it. These student athletes deserve to be paid because they put in countless hours of hard work and balance sports with school work. The first reason athletes in college do deserve to be compensated is because they don 't have time to fit in work with a school and athletic schedule. College athletes don’t have time to get a real job. Student athletes have a very busy schedule, they don’t have time to fit in a job.
The argument made by these two professors state that Division 1 players qualify as employees under Federal Labor Laws. Since players are under this law, the McCormick’s feel players should get financially compensated due to the physical rigors and balance education simultaneously (Cooper, 2011). It’s unbelievable how this couple thinks Division 1 athletes should get paid. The privilege to attend a university that is costly on full scholarship should be more than enough. Furthermore, student-athletes received stipends as an allowance assist with their livelihood.
College athletes already get their education free why should they get paid for playing a sport they love playing. What do you think, should college athletes get paid for playing the sport there in? Well I don’t think so and in this paper I will tell you and give you reasons why they shouldn’t be paid. College athletes are already getting a free education they shouldn’t be allowed to be paid. My topic is why college athletes shouldn’t get paid.
Paying College Athletes This essay I’m going to talk about paying college athletes and why we should pay them a little bit of money. I think we should pay college athletes a little bit of money. I have some facts and reasons why we should to back up reason why we should. Here are my facts and reasons to support my opinion about this topic.