Should
College Athletes Be Paid?
Introduction
Every year, thousands of
student-athletes will graduate from high school, some that feel they are ready
to jump immediately into the pros and start making money. However, most
professional sport organizations have banned them from going straight to the pros
out of high school. With these kinds of rules in place, these student-athletes
are given a decision; they can either sit out until they are eligible, or they
can continue to play sports in college. Most chose the latter, to keep their
skills fresh and intact, instead of sitting for two or more years of not doing
anything to preserve their skills. Colleges make millions, sometimes billions
of dollars off of these athletes, by way of merchandise sales, television
license deals, endorsements with uniform suppliers, and many other forms of
income, with approximately 0% of that income going to the players that make the
income possible, which leaves many people asking, “Should college athletes be
paid?” For this report, I read
and analyzed three different genres: A report from a college law school, a
cartoon from an online website, and a video from a sports television show.
Genre 1: Report from Washington Law
School
The
first article, called The Myth of the
Student-Athlete: The College Athlete as Employee,
is a report by Robert and Amy McCormick, and was published by the University of
Washington Law School. The report starts off by explaining that the National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA, the governing body of college sports) has referred to the athletes that
play their sports as ‘student-athletes’ instead of ‘employee-athletes,’ to give
the illusion that “that these young men and women are learning important life
lessons by engaging in intercollegiate athletics.” (McCormick, College Athlete as Employee 73) By labeling the athletes as students rather
than employees, McCormick explains that this “[has] enabled them (the colleges)
to reap a fantastic surfeit of riches…and related benefits of the athletes’
talents, time, and energy—that is, their labor—while severely curtailing the costs
associated with such labor.” (College
Athlete as Employee, 74) Later
on, McCormick notes “many students… even graduate assistants... who are enrolled
in classes and… teach and perform services… for their universities,” (College Athlete as Employee, 96) are employed by the college, and these
students which perform these services receive payment. McCormick even lists common
laws, as well as National Labor Relations Act legal standards which would
qualify athletes at colleges and universities as employees, which would make
them eligible for payment. McCormick sort-of concludes the report by makes the
point that “Employee-athletes are not primarily students and their relationship
with their universities is an economic one,” (College
Athlete as Employee, 130)
stating that the colleges earn large amounts of money from the athletes’ work
in sports, rather than their work in the classroom.
Genre
2: A cartoon from a website
The next genre is a cartoon from The Week website. The
cartoon depicts two athletes carrying the NCAA
and professional sports, which are represented as a limousine. One of the
athletes asks the other, “No money, no gifts, no cars, no endorsement deals…
tell me again, why are we doing this?” (The Week) The other student-athlete
responds with “For an education, but I’m not feeling too smart” (The Week). The
cartoon is referring to the rules that many professional sports organizations
have put in place, which requires athletes to either attend college or sit out
for a couple years before they can become professional. Most students choose to
go to college, and are offered scholarships from different colleges. However,
this cartoon shows that many athletes are feeling dumb for missing out on the
ability to go professional and earn all the money, endorsements, cars, and
gifts since they have been forced to go to college so they can ‘earn an
education.’ In fact, many feel that they are being forced to work for free,
much like slaves, to carry the load of colleges and professional sports, and
earn them money.
Genre 3: A video clip
from ESPN
The final genre is a segment from ESPN’s Recruiting Nation. In this particular
segment, Dave Telep, Craig Haubert and Paul
Biancardi are the three analysts that are presented with Kansas coach Bill
Self’s comments that players should be paid. Dave Telep starts off by saying
that there is enough money generated from colleges through media deals and
conference alignment that colleges now have the ability to pay athletes. He
says that “it’s the right thing to do, but… it’s not gonna happen” (Telep, RecruitingNation). Then, Craig Haubert argues that “People
under-value the expense of a college education” (Haubert, RecruitingNation RecruitingNation).
He argues that many people are forced to take out a loan just to be able to go
to college, and once they graduate, they are stuck with a huge amount of money
that they have to pay off. He says that student-athletes are able to bypass
having to take out a loan because all of their college expenses are paid for by
the college. Finally, Paul Biancardi starts his piece off by listing all
the people affiliated with college athletics that get paid, and says that all
the athletes get is their education is paid for by the college. He says that
since the athletes are the ones earning the money that colleges get from the
athletics, that they should get some of that money.
Similarities
All three of the genres were made to
provide an opinion on the subject, since it has been in the news more and more,
and has become almost a national debate subject, like gay marriage or
legalizing marijuana. Two
of the three of the genres use an image, whether it be moving, like the video, or
static, like the cartoon. All three of the articles take on a serious tone, and
don’t stray far from the topic of whether or not athletes should be paid. I
feel that the analysts in the ESPN video and the Doctor and the author of the Washington Law school report
are the most credible to speak on the subject. Even if they work in the field of law, where they would
know the rules on this type of stuff, or they analyze college sports and everything associated with
it, they are still more credible than a cartoon drawer who is just
throwing in his two cents drawing for a website.
Differences
Of the three genres, I felt that the ESPN video had the best
format or layout. They used a quote from a college coach, and then had three
college sports analysts debate the topic. The cartoon is just an image format,
so you click on the link and you see the image. The report was an 87-page long pdf document, which used literally
hundreds of sources to create. The three genres also are designed for
different viewers. The ESPN video is designed for someone who looks mostly at
the sports side of the subject. Although it doesn't stick to one side of the
argument, it does provide evidence that supports either side. The cartoon
pertains more to someone who would perhaps be reading about the subject, and
then decided to do a Google search for more information about the subject. The law school report is
aimed more towards anyone
who is doing some
sort of research on the subject, as well as lawyers who are trying to build a case if they
were to get the NCAA to change the rules.
Analysis
Of the three genres, I think the ESPN
video was most effective at getting their message out. Even though the analysts
didn't all pick one opinion, they still presented their opinion, gave
supporting evidence, and stood by their opinion. Yes, they weren't all on the
same side of the argument, but that is really the nature of a debate; there are
going to be people on both sides of an argument. The least effective genre was
the cartoon, mainly because the writer didn't back up their opinion with
supporting evidence. However, with a cartoon, the artist is going to be limited
to what they can fit into the space they are given, so I don’t think a cartoon
or an image would be the best genre to use for this subject, or really with any
subject which would require supporting evidence to be presented. The law school report was somewhat
effective, as it utilized a large amount of evidence to back up the writers’
opinion that student-athletes are employees, and therefore, should be paid. The
one problem is that it is an 87-page long report. Not many people have the time
and/or the patience to read through a whole 87-page document. However, most
college reports must be very lengthy, and have pages and pages of supporting
evidence in order to prove their point to the professor, and receive a passing
grade.
Conclusion
To
conclude, there are dozens of articles which can be found that discuss the
topic of college athletics and payment. It seems extremely unfair that these
student-athletes spend hours upon hours training for these sports. Then, to go
out and be the product for a billion-dollar industry, these student-athletes
are not legally able to see a penny of it. The main counterpoint is that the
athletes are also students, and it would be unfair to the other students
attending the college/university if these athletes were to receive something in
return, besides a higher education. Many writers have gone out and argued for
each side, presenting great evidence as to why or why not these
student-athletes should be paid.
Works
Cited
Bagley,
Pat. "College Athletes' Heavy Load." Cartoon. The Week. N.P., 2011. Web. 1 Mar.
2014.
McCormick,
Robert A., and Amy Christian McCormick. The Myth of the Student-Athlete: The College Athlete as
Employee. Vol. 81:71.
Washington Law Review Association, 2006. Web. 9 Mar. 2014.
RecruitingNation: NCAA Athletes Payment Debate. Prod. ESPN. Perf. Dave Telep, Craig Haubert, and Paul
Biancardi. YouTube. N.P.,
25 Oct. 2012. Web. 1 Mar. 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment