In this article, the author, Thelin compares two different 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 both 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 in salary would not work and the numbers Thelin plays with show how it would not benefit either side.
This article can be effectively used to present a logical example to the reader that why college athletes should not be paid. This 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 makes it clear 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 a very excellent reading to get both sides of the argument.
This article can be used as an example to show some history with this argument. This article lays out and lists the advantages and the disadvantages of paying athletes and not paying them and 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 in some manner. The author of the article thinks that free education is sufficient enough compensation because of the fact that the 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 explains 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, who 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 compensations that the 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 that 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 what the solution to this argument might look like if there is indeed one.
This article would prove to be very useful because it gives the reader some information on what side the majority of 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 who think 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 who cannot afford to pay their athletes.
This article is a good point of view of why the college athletes should not be paid. The ideas presented in the article can be utilized to assess the reasons due to which it would not work to pay these athletes. It is because 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 gives good reasoning for 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 that include being provided with all the basic needs. Moreover, the author explains how the rate of graduation is higher in college athletes as compared to the people not involved in athletics. The main point of the author is that these athletes are being educated, not exploited.
One of the biggest reasons why people think college athletes should be paid is that they think players are being exploited. This whole article proves how and why they are not being exploited and why education and all other benefits are sufficient enough compensation for playing. The information in this article is very useful towards 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 makes that kind of profit. Then the author goes on talking about how students are compensated enough by free education, and that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Student Assistance Fund is put in place 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 to explain why it would not make sense to start paying college athletes because of the little 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 the college athletes for playing or not, but the real issue should be that are they getting enough financial aid to improve their student life.