PAY FOR PLAY: SHOULD THE NCAA PAY ITS PLAYERS?

Image result for NCAA SPORTS

“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.


 https://www.facebook.com/groups/1777548702458281/

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Afaheem+jackson&keywords=faheem+jackson&ie=UTF8&qid=1492966094&rnid=2941120011

@fjackson12345 Instagram

@2320howe Twitter

EPIEPRICE!! THE HIGH COST OF HEALTHCARE

Image result for epipen

“Where do you draw the line between business of greed?”

Recently in the news, the high cost of the Epipen has caused quite the controversy. And for those of you who are unfamiliar with the Epipen it was is designed to inject epinephrine into the system. The shot’s purpose is used in the case of severe allergic reactions. It aids in blood flow, keeping muscles from becoming constricted, improves breathing, and  increases heart rates. The pharmaceutical company Mylan branded the pen for over $600. But the original amount that consumers were spending was $50 – $60 for a pack. So in response to the outcry from the public, the company stated it would roll out the generic version for $300.

Now, it sounds like they’re giving a deal, but it’s not. Especially considering the original amount was less than $100. Price hikes came a result of trying to remain competitive in the marketplace. But I ask the question; when does competition becomes pure greed. You mean in order for a company to compete, the prices needed to be raised from $50 to $600. There was also criticism over the CEO receiving, or better yet, giving herself a raise. And we’re not talking a few dollars or even a few hundred thousand dollars. She received a nearly $20 million payday, about $18 million up from her previous salary.

Now as a society, we’re always hearing about the government getting tough on insurance companies for their practices. But what about the pharmaceutical companies as well. If you don’t already know, not even a few years ago, another businessman purchased an AIDS vaccine. After purchasing the pills, the price was taken from $13.50 to $750 per pill. The move prompted the government to intervene. And this is why we have so much federal regulation in the United States as it pertains to the corporate world.

But at what point is it greed? How much money is enough or is there ever enough? While these multinational corporations generate revenues hand over fist, the average American suffers. Who can can afford to pay an increase in Epiepen shots even if the cost is down to $300. Still, I have been waiting to hear from the president, but still no answer. I wish that I could say it’s a particular administration, but it’s all of them. None of them will come out and attack what should be illegal business practices.

Charging the highest amount that the market is willing and able to afford, while shifting deadweight loss to the consumer sounds familiar. Oh yeah, it’s called a monopoly. Monopolies under the law are suppose to be prohibited, but we have other names for companies that fit under monopoly like categories such as Oligopolies. Which is few competitors in the marketplace who control nearly the entire market. The government says it makes it easier for them to regulate having the big four or the big five instead of the big ten or big twenty.

Whatever the case may be, I don’t much regulation. It seems as if the government’s regulations are no more than words on paper. Words that only are used to make people feel good, yet never enforced. In the end price increases are normal in business, but not by hundreds of percent. Prices that are so high it’s beyond obvious that the company raising the prices are getting over on the consumers.