From an economics standpoint, there is now basically a price ceiling on the amount colleges can "pay" athletes, since they can only provide scholarships. If colleges could pay students, do you think there would be more competition over student-athletes? At what price do you think equilibrium would be reached?
So what do you think, should student-athletes be paid? If so, how much and should it be based upon performance?
Source from Washington Post
6 comments:
Student athletes should not be paid because when it comes down to it, they are still just students, like any other student at a university. Another reason they should not be paid is because it promotes the emphasis on sports, rather than receiving an education. I don't think that there would be more competition to be a student athlete because in order to be a student athlete one must excel at a specific sport and to get to that level is extremely difficult. Possibly, the incentive to try and become a student athlete would increase, but not necessarily the competition for spots on top tier teams because it is extremely difficult and takes a lot of time and dedication to come close to the athletic standards that top teams look for.
I agree with Paige, student athletes should remember that they are students first and the emphasis should be placed on receiving an education. But I think if college athletes were paid there would be even more competition for spots on college sports teams because I think even more students and their families would view playing a sport in college as their opportunity to be able to afford college tuition. While there is nothing wrong with wanting to be able to pay for college, I think there would be increased pressure on high school (and if someone's really ambitious, middle school) students to focus on sports, since the reward of being a college athlete is very significant.
This is an extremely delicate subject, and there is no solution to this problem that leaves everyone happy. I agree with Paige and Alexa that yes, student-athletes should be students first, but that is absolutely not how they are treated by the majority of universities or by the NCAA. Let's talk about the March madness tournament for example. Every year, a team has 13 scholarships available to give to its players. Let's say tuition, room and board, is roughly 30,000 dollars. By these numbers, the players are valued at about 390,000 dollars. If a school wins just one tournament game, they receive over 1 million dollars from T.V contracts and other advertising. The team that wins the whole tournament earns about 14 million, and that does not even include the money they generated during the regular season. The bottom line is that at big time NCAA athletic programs, the value of the athlete is far greater than the amount he is compensated.
The NCAA is one of the most corrupt institutions in the world. Players, mainly basketball and football, are under unbelievable pressure to preform in their games, not in the classroom. They are full time athletes, the training and practice is year round, and the men and women above them are making millions as a result of their labor. It's not right.
I am not a supporter of paying athletes salaries, but they should be able to sell their autographs, receive royalties from their jersey sales, and get a bonus at the end of the season if their school wins big at the end.
I think that NCAA athletes should be paid. Without a doubt they should, at least at the top level of division 1 basketball including scholarships. Like Joey said, the NCAA is corrupt. IT might be easy for one to say hey they are students first and some receive scholarships. But most do not, and most NCAA athletes spend over 25 hours a week practicing and training. For example, a football player at San Jose State spends his morning prior to school training for two hours, and then after school at 3 hour practice. Then they have to go on long tours to travel across the country to play another school, while the NCAA generates billions of dollars in cash form television viewers, advertisements, and ticket revenue, yet the "student athlete" misses classes and doesn't get paid. Most division 1 athletes do not receive full scholarships. I mean shouldn't it count as a job if they spend more time working in their sport than other students working at a bookstore? Don't underestimate the amount of money the NCAA or sports generate. THink about March madness. March madness generates more money than the Superbowl. THE SUPERBOWl ( http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/freakonomics-radio/how-much-tv-money-does-march-madness-make)
This is worse than not paying interns. I think that student should receive full scholarships and receive compensation perhaps similar to those who have normal campus jobs, and I support Joey's idea that they should receive royalties.
I think that you made a valid point, Keith, that there is justification for student athletes being paid. I also see reasons why they shouldn't be paid, though. My concern is that we treat different sports differently. This happens even at Aragon (more fuss is made over football than golf). This may be legitimate, some sports do make more money, or it may not be. If athletes were paid though, it may introduce a level of unfairness because a star football player may be paid more than a star tennis player.
I think that you made a valid point, Keith, that there is justification for student athletes being paid. I also see reasons why they shouldn't be paid, though. My concern is that we treat different sports differently. This happens even at Aragon (more fuss is made over football than golf). This may be legitimate, some sports do make more money, or it may not be. If athletes were paid though, it may introduce a level of unfairness because a star football player may be paid more than a star tennis player.
Post a Comment