Many college students play for their school teams in exchange for a scholarship grant. This helps families who can’t afford to send their children to a good university or college save money for education. This also helps young adults to fulfil their dreams of becoming professionals in different fields. In return, they help bring honor and fame to their schools.
Paying college athletes has been a topic among students, parents and communities recently. This has become more prominent whenever a young sportsman is seriously injured while playing or training for their sport. Moreover, the demand to pay these young athletes have become greater, as well. However, just like all subjects, there are those who propose this proposal and there are those who oppose it. How about you? Do you agree or disagree to paying college athletes?
To help you decide which side to take, it’s best to know the pros and cons of paying college students.
List of Pros of Paying College Students
1. It can help lower tuition fees.
This is what’s going to happen if the companies that sponsor college games pay the schools, not the individual athletes. That way, the players will get to share their blessings with the entire college or university.
2. It helps the young players and their families survive throughout their college life.
While regular students are able to have part-time jobs to help fend for their expenses in school, college players do not get to have this kind of luxury. This is because their schedules are filled with training, exercise, school and sports-related activities.
3. It could prevent abuse.
There may be interested parties that would offer special “privileges” to the players in exchange for “favors”, like how the game would turn out. In other words, not paying college athletes might be used by unscrupulous individuals as an opportunity to lure to conduct shady business.
4. It will attract new talents.
Universities who would be willing to pay their athletes would naturally attract more students with exceptional talents. As a result, the schools will win more tournaments and gain more prestige.
5. It promotes wellness about students.
Money will always attract people. So, if colleges pay their athletes, more students will be interested in playing different sports. As a result, there will be more students who will fit and healthy due to the rigorous training and recommended diet that comes with the trainings players will undergo.
6. It encourages the players to follow the same high standard of professionalism.
Top players will go on to play professional sports in the future. By paying student athletes, schools are treating them like pros, encouraging them to continue the kind of dedication and perseverance when they become professionals.
7. It will pave the way for students to pay off their loans as soon as they finish college.
This will not tie the students to debts that will take them half their lives to pay.
8. It will aid the students to help pay for debilitating injuries.
Sports is synonymous to injuries; this is a fact. By paying college players, they will have the money to pay for treatment, hospitalization, rehabilitation and other expenses.
9. It is giving the athletes what they deserve.
Remember: student players risk their lives to play these sports. They lead hectic lives juggling academics, trainings and tournaments. It’s only right that they are given compensation for their contribution to their schools.
List of Cons of Paying College Athletes
1. It is considered a “double kill”.
Schools in Divisions I and II offer full scholarships to athletes through educational benefits. If student athletes are offered monetary compensation, which could run up to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, it’s like giving them twice the benefits. What many opponents are proposing is for TV networks and other game sponsors pay the schools so the money can be shared with the entire college.
2. It might deviate the athletes’ attention from their education.
If students are paid for playing sports for their universities, they might be tempted to choose their sport over their academics. And if they fail in class, they could lose their scholarships. When that happens, they run the risk of dropping out of school.
3. It could put unnecessary burden on smaller colleges.
Low-income schools could be pressured into paying for their athletes, which could mean sacrificing some aspects of the school operation. When that happens, the quality of education could be diminished. Aside from that, larger divisions could monopolize athletic talent, taking away the chance for smaller schools to win major titles.
4. It could lead to expensive lawsuits.
It is virtually impossible to have a payment scale across the board. Aside from that, athletes who will score more points will be more confident in asking for higher wages. When that happens, it will be unfair to those who may be struggling as a player or as a student. As a result, students or parents might file for lawsuit against their schools.
5. It could remove the tradition of college sports.
Conservatives argue that college sports is not to provide profit to athletes, but to foster real sportsmanship between schools. If you put money in the equation, it could debase the essence of amateurism.
6. It could be unfair to athletes of less popular sports.
Players of less popular sports with little to no revenue may not receive any compensation due to lack of sponsors. This could be unfair to student players, especially those who might need more financial assistance.
The subject of paying college athletes is still a no-go. But for the sake of arguments, many people offer their arguments on the topic. However, the decision whether to provide compensation to students or not is one that is difficult to resolve. Furthermore, there will be a lot of questions to be answered to ensure that any financial compensation that will be given to these players is fair across the board. For one, the question of how each player should be paid needs to be addressed. Will it be based on their performance or their position in the team? Ultimately, the NCAA will have to make a decision, either by choice or due to a legal mandate.
Natalie Regoli, Esq. is the author of this post and the editor-in-chief of our blog. She received her B.A. in Economics from the University of Washington and her Masters in Law from The University of Texas School of Law. In addition to being a seasoned writer, Natalie has almost two decades of experience as a lawyer and banker. If you would like to reach out to contact Natalie, then go here to send her a message.