“What is wrong with payment?”
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has been a strong organization that has served as a platform which has launched the careers of so many well-known athletes. But the topic in recent years have came up regarding the payment of athletes for their performance in sports. Should they be paid for their skill or shouldn’t they be paid? It makes sense considering how much money the universities and the NCAA make off these athletes. Others say they are receiving a free education so what’s the use of giving them payment as well. Well, let’s observe both sides of the argument and see the point of view from both perspectives.
On the side of paying athletes, a reason to pay athletes is because the value of a college education versus the what they are making the university does not equate. Meaning, an Ivy League education is of the highest value, and that is only a few million dollars. Not a few million dollars per year, but that is the value over the person’s entire career in life. In addition to that, the university is pulling in major television, internet, and endorsement deals, meanwhile athletes make nothing. The athletes are the ones people are coming to see. So why are the main people who are the reason for this monetary gain not being compensated. Even the coaches are pulling in salaries, some of which making 5, 10, even upwards of $20 million in a year as a coach. With all that has been said, athletes typically spend more time playing their sport than going to class anyways, why not compensate them?
But what about the other side of argument. How come athletes are being paid? For starters, paying students to go to school sets precedent where now they are not attending to receive schooling, but income. They are far less inclined to learn anything if you are already on your day job. In addition, paying to play does not translate into anything in the work environment. The majority of athletes will not be going pro in sports, so what job can they get with college athlete on their resume. But an even bigger issue is the competitive nature of recruiting for sports. Whereas prior to payment, Ivy League schools would now start to get in the business of sports. They have more capital than a lot of other schools, so they would dominate given they have such an access of finances. As well as other public and private institutions with much larger endowments; they would monopolize NCAA sports.
In my opinion, even with the the amount of money coming it still would be a problem to pay. And my argument is not them receiving a free education. Why, because an education is not what gets you employment in society. Think of it as baking a cake, a college degree is just icing. Everything that goes into making that cake is you not your education. My issue would be the players with funding to come into the sports game monopolizing the system. Even with an implementation of a sports cap, you would still have New York Yankee style recruiting, out bidding other schools for athletes. So in the end, paying athletes could actually hurt the NCAA. Not just monopolizing, but sports agents would come into play, endorsement companies that serve a system would now be in athletes interest. And athletics would no longer be team sport, rather a chase for dollars. So as irritating as it may seem, paying collegiate athletes could hurt sports competition rather than help.