Many people do not get a chance to have an experience of being an athlete in college. Some have an interest in getting the experience while others do not even dream of it. The majority of the students who are athletes are respected so much either way due to their hard work and also because of what they offer to the entire university (Karaim, 2014). Campus athletes make the university popular, which makes the college receive more students as a result of its successful team. Therefore, there is no doubt that all athletes need to deserve something great; all their hard work should be appreciated. They should be paid and not just the scholarship money but also through cash for their use.
As school athletic projects keep on generating a large number of dollars in income for their schools, advocates for understudy competitors have started pushing for schools to pay their players, while rivals say that remunerating competitors can demolish school sports. Many people, especially the parents think that paying the college athletes will discourage them from the usual learning thus lagging them behind. They argue that less attention should be paid to athletics and more attention to the normal studies. They forget that this is the best opportunity for the campus athletes to showcase their talents in competition both in national and local level. Those who reject this point of paying college athletes argue that the athletes commit themselves to the game to a gauge practically identical to the expert level. Paying the competitors could be considered as they play central point in the notoriety of their schools, and additionally supports for their schools. However, most schools do not have productive athletics groups. Along these lines, paying competitors would turn out to be an exceptionally troublesome undertaking, and this could wreck the school funds (Karaim, 2014). Also, many people talk about how stressful it is and time-consuming, but one cannot realize it until they get the experience in it. It is time-consuming and stressing because it is quite competitive and there has to be enough practice and participation. Majority of the time goes to practice throughout the day or even a week. That is why college athletes need to be paid.
Pro side of the controversy
University athletes hazard their lives to play these games. They have rushed existences juggling scholastic, training, and competitions. It’s just right that they are given pay for their commitment to their schools. Top players will go ahead to play proficient games later on. By paying college athletes, schools are treating them like experts, urging them to proceed with the sort of devotion and steadiness when they progress toward becoming experts. Paying school athletes enable these students to manufacture an establishment of budgetary literacy (Sanderson, & Siegfried, 2015).They are also able to cater to their financial needs because several of them could only be depending on this money.
Con side of the controversy
For those who are already competent, they tend not to play hard because they think they have already made it to the highest level, and therefore they would not like to harm themselves if the game is not at the national level. Compensating campus athletes could take away from their energy and make them less roused to work hard in classes (Sanderson, & Siegfried, 2015). Colleges should treat competitors with an equal lack of interest from some other understudy with squashing loan commitments.
Tentative thesis statement
Paying college athletes should be encouraged in universities as this encourages students to showcase their talents. It also helps them get a source for generating income. However, it should also be balanced with other college students who are financially unstable.
Karaim, R. (2014). Paying College Athletes. CQ Researcher by CQ Press. CQ Press, 11.
Sanderson, A. R., & Siegfried, J. J. (2015). The case for paying college athletes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 115-38.