In this article, the author, Thelin, compares two scenarios: a college athlete getting a salary of 100,000 U.S. dollars and a college athlete getting a 65,000 U.S. dollars worth of scholarship. Thelin shows how it is a disadvantage for the student and the school to have a $100,000 salary rather than a scholarship because so much of the salary would be taken out from taxes and you would still have to pay for education. This article is a good example of why paying college athletes a salary would not work, and the numbers Thelin plays with show how it would not benefit either side.
This article effectively presents a logical example to the reader of why college athletes should not be paid. It comes from a reliable resource, and I will use his research to show the real reason why we do not pay them in the first place.
Lemmons’ article first describes how the issue of paying college athletes could be a race issue. He shows the percentages of black and white people supporting college-paying college athletes. He also explains the lawsuit in 2014 involving Ed O’Bannon and others who were sued for violating the United States’ anti-trust laws. Then the article lists the basic pros and cons of paying college athletes. It is easy to see the different viewpoints on the issue because every pro and every con makes a lot of sense. Lemmons clarifies that he does not stand on a certain side with this issue, but questions whether it is unfair, racial, or unnecessary to pay college athletes. It is an excellent reading that explains both sides of the argument.
This article can be used as an example to show some history with this argument. This article lists the advantages and disadvantages of paying athletes and not paying them; it would be very convenient to see how different they are.
This article first states that players should not be paid, but should definitely be compensated somehow. The author of the article thinks that free education is sufficient compensation because college athletes do not get into debt. He states a fact that almost 71 percent of the students leave their education due to massive debts, while athletes do not have to worry about that. Free education for the representation of an educational institution is a fair trade. He goes on to explain how it would not be fair to pay athletes of certain sports and not the others. The reality is that basketball and football are the biggest markets in college sports, but you cannot just pay them and not the other sports or women’s leagues, which do not have nearly as big of a market.
This article can be considered to support the argument that free education is enough compensation for playing a sport. The facts in this article paint the image that the compensation that college athletes get is more than fair enough and that it is a privilege to be granted a scholarship and the opportunity to play.
McKee presents a recent study conducted by UMass Lowell and The Washington Post that surveyed people on whether or not college athletes should be paid. This article is written on a page for the Kentucky Wildcats, a huge market for college sports. They found that 52 percent of the people questioned think college athletes should be compensated for their sports activities. 54 percent of the African Americans questioned believe they should be paid, and 66 percent of people think they should be paid only if their name is used on television or other products. McKee then goes on about the solution to this argument, if there is indeed one.
This article would prove to be very useful because it gives the reader some information on what side most people might be on. The split might be pretty even, but the author offers some layers to the study. The information in this article can also be used to talk about what people think the solution could be.
This article starts with Johnny Manziel, a former football star of Texas A&M, stating that college athletes should be paid. The author of the article, Jackson, goes on to explain why the idea presented by Manziel would not work. He sees where these people are coming from and who thinks they should be paid, but he looks at it from a business standpoint. He mentions how schools are making a lot of money from these players, but it can be said that this exploitation is just a part of the business and is quite normal, even though it can be unfair. Then he explains how if colleges did pay their athletes, it would be even more unfair, especially for the schools that cannot afford to pay their athletes.
This article presents a good argument against paying college athletes. The ideas presented in the article can be utilized to assess the reasons why it would not work to pay these athletes. It is more of a business. Moreover, the ideas presented by the author demonstrate why the system will never change even though there is a demand to change it.
This article explains why education is enough compensation for college athletes. The reasoning presented in the article completely debunks the idea that college athletes are being exploited. The article shows that athletes have a tremendous amount of benefits, including being provided with all the basic needs. Moreover, the author explains how the rate of graduation is higher among college athletes than among people not involved in athletics. The author’s main point is that these athletes are being educated, not exploited.
One of the biggest reasons people think college athletes should be paid is that they think players are being exploited. This article proves how and why they are not being exploited and why education and all other benefits are sufficient compensation for playing. The information in this article is very useful in explaining why people think these athletes should be paid.
The author of this article states that it is a misconception that colleges make enough money from their sports teams that they could be paying their athletes. However, only a fraction of the schools make that kind of profit. Then, the author talks about how students are compensated enough by free education and how the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Student Assistance Fund is implemented to help with any student’s unusual needs. The article explains how there is a struggle with college athletes who want to earn income or part-take in college experiences. So, the argument should swing towards the direction that students should get more financial aid to solve that problem.
This is a very useful article that explains why it would not make sense to start paying college athletes because of the small number of schools that have that kind of market. It also brings up a good point that maybe the issue should not be whether we should pay college athletes for playing or not but whether they are getting enough financial aid to improve their student life.
