Few conversations hold the
ability to bring forth the intense passion like the topic of paying collegiate athletes.
There seems to be an abundance of talk upon this issue without any action
taking place. I refuse to partake in these spirited conversations as there are
so many variables, yet few intellectual resolutions. The grander issue at hand
is the variation in those compensated over those who are not. It does not take
a modern day economist to determine that the occurrences within the most
popular non-profit association are erroneous. Currently, no answer exists to
determine if a student-athlete should receive a form of compensation, and I’m
content with that verdict.
However, it is difficult to silently
observe while so many others rake in the billions of dollars that collegiate
athletics generate. The NCAA states on its website that it was, “Founded more
than one hundred years ago to protect student-athletes.” The NCAA, its board of directors, and its
ever so many committees are considered to be the most intellectual minds our
nation can produce. Yet, the president of the NCAA, Mark Emmert, steadfastly
states, “As long as I’m president of the NCAA, we will not pay student-athletes
to play sports.” It is fundamentally wrong that merchandisers, members of the media, and so many others whose careers lie outside collegiate athletics have
the opportunity to be so greatly compensated.
It is okay to not be in favor of
“Pay-for-Play”, but it is wrong to deny student-athletes the revenue they solely
generate while others are rewarded.
student-athletes don't generate revenue. tx a&m stadium was full long before johnny football, and florida' stadium was full before tebow, and the rupp arena will be full every year, regardless of the one and done that is playing in the uniform this year. many of these athletes were nowhere close to meeting the regular student admission standards, they should be thankful. but because education was never a priority for them, they do not respect the value of it. and they all have cell phones and cars, so I don't want to hear that they can't afford a pizza and a movie. no one ever mentions the nearly $6000 a year pell grant that the students with real finanical need get to pocket in football and basketball teams.
ReplyDeleteenough already. if they eliminated athletic scholarships, and made everyone meet the same admission standards, the same schools would still get the best players. the difference is the "best" players would be at a lesser caliber than we currently watch play. Alabama would still play Tex A&M to packed stadiums and they would be cheering for their school.
stop this nonsense already
It is obvious that, normally, open minded thoughts can be flustered by the subject of “Pay-for-Play”. Do not miss the point of this article. The argument that elite schools will always attract elite student-athletes is spot on, and one is correct that fans will continually show up to the games. Nothing in the article disputes that. To make the statement that “student-athletes don't generate revenue” is totally misguided and ignorant. Remove the student-athletes from the field of play, and revenue will be removed. Hypothetical? Yes. True? Yes.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's unfair that student athletes are exploited by major brands and media with seemingly little recompense. But I would also argue that the answer does not lie in compensation to any particular individual student athletes. There should be a revenue sharing governance body created under the NCAA where monies are collected and redistributed but to the student athletes as a whole body. The money could then be used for things like long term rehabilitation programs or elite athlete development or even graduate scholarships.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, any governing body created under the NCAA would simply be a mess. They have made too many wrong turns and missed steps to be credible. Please follow the three year investigation of Miami to get a sample of the NCAA at work.
DeleteThe subject of these brief comments was covered at length (7 pages) as the front cover story of current TIME magazine received on 9 September 2013
ReplyDeleteBrief comments or 7 pages, this issue is too complicated and too large to discover a resolution without caring individuals getting together to find ways to make this situation better. Perhaps a combination of national media and individual blogs will apply enough pressure to inspire a group of truly independent thinkers, without agendas, to search for something more equatable to all.
Delete