The Pros And Cons Of Paying College Athletes

One of the most heated debates in the modern sports industry regards the issue of whether the work of collegiate athletes warrants monetary compensation. The classic position of sports academia has been that the athletes’ scholarships and received training were enough recompense, especially considering their “amateurism.” However, personages both in and out of the sports industry have started challenging this opinion. Those well-versed in the language of the law have brought these regulations up as potentially illegal. Economists have raised ethical concerns regarding the skewed distribution of the profits made from sports events. And perhaps of paramount importance, actual athletes who have experienced this in the world of sports academia

This, however, remains relevant to this modern-day conundrum. According to Text 1, this legislation suggests that the NCAA rules that prohibit colleges from paying their athletes are actually illegal and restrain fair trade and commerce. It’s a compelling and reasonable argument, considering the figures presented in Text 2. University athletes often lack monetary resources to pay for their ancillary needs such as hygiene products and fuel. In sharp contrast, their coaches earn hefty and continually increasing salaries each year. This salient discrepancy demonstrates that the profit is in fact being unevenly and unfairly distributed- especially considering that it is the athletes who do the bulk of the work, with coaches serving only as auxiliary support. This is disturbingly reminiscent of Progressive Era business practices, with business tycoons (analogous to the coaches) earning the majority of the money, and their employees and laborers (analogous to the athletes) only pocketing a meager portion. On a legal ground alone, these rules may already be invalid and

Hanlon’s Razor advises against assuming malicious intent without enough evidence to substantiate such an assumption- as such we must examine the position from its proponents’ perspectives. According to one of the articles in favor of these regulations, Text 4, the media exposure and the technical skill imparted is payment enough for these athletes. It’s a grand idea, a scholarship that serves also as a gateway to fame and recognition. However, how will that help them? True, they may acquire fame and impeccable skill. Yet if they still live in poverty, unable to find work due to full team rosters and a lack of credentials for a more conventional career, then what will all of that net them in the end? How does that help them in any practical way? It’s these glaring questions that make it difficult to comprehend the logic of those who advocate for not paying college