Rhetorical Analysis OfCollege Athletes Are Being Educated, Not Exploited

Should college student-athletes be paid has become a much debated topic. The incentive for a student-athlete to play a college sport should not be for money, but for the love of the game. It has been argued that colleges are making money and therefore the student-athlete should be compensated. When contemplating college income from sporting events and memorabilia from popular sports, such as football and basketball, it must not be forgotten that colleges do incur tremendous expense for all their sports programs. If income from sports is the driving factor to pay student-athletes, several major problems arise from such a decision. One problem is who gets a salary and the second problem is how much should they be paid. Also, if the income

For about a decade, the debate between whether collegiate athletes should be paid while playing has been contemplated. Now, the focus has moved from all sports to two specific areas, football and men’s basketball. Sprouting from many court cases filed against the NCAA to some ugly sandals dealing with the athletes themselves. In the 2010 – 2011 time frame, this controversy really sparked up chatter; eventually leading the current pled for sport reformation. Our student athletes are the ones who are at the expense here stuck in between this large argument. Over the past 10 years, there has been minor things done for either side and the players themselves have started taking things into their own hands. The year 2010 a total of 7 student

College sports are one of the largest and fastest growing markets in today’s culture. With some college sports games attracting more viewers than their professional counterparts, the NCAA is one of the most profiting organizations in America. Recently there has been controversy in the world of college sports as to whether the college athletes that are making their universities and the NCAA money should receive payment while they are playing their respective sport. Many believe that these athletes should be paid. Others argue that they are already receiving numerous benefits for playing that sport from their universities. Many of the proponents of paying college athletes are current or former college athletes who believe their hard work and hours put into practice and competing go under appreciated. They feel that while the athletes are making the university money, the athletes do not receive any cut of these profits. Opponents feel that athletes already receive numerous perks and should not receive extra compensation on top of the perks they already receive.

College athletic programs are among the most popular sporting events in America. With this rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue in recent years. In 2014, the NCAA made over 900 million dollars in revenue. Some collegiate coaches, such as Kentucky’s John Calipari, have yearly salaries in the millions, not counting incentives and endorsement deals. While, clearly, money is being made, NCAA regulations ban collegiate athletes from being paid. Many question this rule and argue that athletes at the college level earn and deserve pay for play. The debate to pay or not to pay college athletes rages on despite the latest court ruling supporting NCAA policies. Because colleges and universities earn such a profit from sporting events, many fans feel it is only fair to distribute some of the wealth to the players. Supporters of paying student athletes feel that these young men and women should be fairly compensated for the time demanded of the athletes and the stress put on the athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Those in favor of paying college athletes contend that athletic and academic work ethic at both high school and collegiate levels will improve, as well as, fiscal responsibility in these young adults. The NCAA argues that paying athletes would negatively affect their

With the universities pulling in more than twelve billion dollars, the rate of growth for college athletics surpasses companies like McDonalds and Chevron (Finkel, 2013). The athletes claim they are making all the money, but do not see a dime of this revenue. The age-old notion that the collegiate athletes are amateurs and students, binds them into not being paid by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). This pay for play discussion has been talked about since the early 1900s but recently large steps are being made to actually make a change. There are many perspectives on the payment of collegiate student athletes coming from the NCAA, the athletes themselves, and the university officials.

The ugly truth behind the money machine that is college sports is that, every year, college athletes are deceived by the institutions the compete for into making them millions of dollars, with relatively little in return. Athletes are said to be given a chance to attend college and to attain a free college degree. However, research has shown that this is not completely true for two reasons. For one, the student athlete will spend most of their time in preparation for competition. Secondly, what education the student athlete does receive hardly serves them outside of maintaining eligibility just so

Throughout the years college sports have been about the love of the game, filled with adrenaline moments. However, the following question still remains: Should college athletes get paid to play sports in college? Seemingly, this debate has been endless, yet the questions have gone unanswered. The National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) plays a vital role in this debate. The NCAA is a billion dollar industry, but yet sees that the athlete should get paid for their hard work and dedication.

Whether or not student-athletes should be paid has been a hotly debated topic since the 1900s. College athletes spend just as much time, if not more time, practicing and devoting time and energy to sports as they do academics. For this, many athletes are rewarded with scholarship money. However, many people believe it is not enough. Should we pay student-athletes a slice of the wealth or is a full-ride scholarship enough? (Business Insider). What if the athlete gets injured? Where does the money come out of to support each athlete’s salary? The huge amount of money being generated from college sports has led some people to think that the athletes are entitled to some of that revenue. While, some think that student-athletes should be paid, others disagree for various reasons.

Ever since college students started playing sports, back in 1879 when Harvard played Yale in the first collegiate sports game, the question of whether college athletes should be paid was addressed. From that point on athletes, coaches, and college administrators have brought forward points agreeing or disagreeing with the notion of paying college students. The students argue that they deserve to be paid due to the revenue that they bring for the college and because of the games they play and the championships they win. At first the idea of paying college athletes was out of the question, but now the argument has gone from a simple yes or no to a heated debate. Since college athletes are given a free education, they should not also be paid.

In the op-ed “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid,” written by Warren Hartenstine analyzes the issue on college football players being paid for their performance on the field. This op-ed article was published in The Baltimore Sun, which is a major newspaper in Maryland. Warren Hartenstine was an assistant dean at a large East Coast school and was playing Division I football while attending one of the Big Ten institutions. While playing football he was also very involved in extracurricular activities with school, such as being in a fraternity, Kappa Sigma. Warren Hartenstine was involved in his school and the schooling system majorly, he believes in having self discipline and dual success in a student’s favorite institution and their higher education.

Its no secret that college sports brings in the big bucks, and without the athletes preforming day in or day out universities would lack the funds to support a school needs. The college sports industry makes 11 billion in annual revenues (Mitchell, Horace, U.S. News Digital Weekly). 11 billion dollars made off of college sports alone is enough its self to pay these student-athletes for their contribution to a school’s success because without them there wouldn’t be this much income. They need these athletes and the NCAA should quit exploiting them for their talents and compensate them. Student-athletes are amateurs who choose to participate in intercollegiate athletics (Mitchell, Horace, U.S. News Digital Weekly). Indeed, they are amateur but in sports the word professional has a different meaning since in all sports there is a 1-2-year stint before an athlete can go from the college level to a professional standpoint. Meaning it only takes a year or two

Howard Chudacoff raises the controversial question of whether or not college athletes should be paid during a time of the year when people are most focused on college athletics, March Madness. Chudacoff is a firm believer that college athletes are given enough amenities as it is and do not deserve extra compensation or paychecks. His main arguments to support his position revolve around the royalties that power five athletes receive in regards to education centers, training facilities, and the fact that these players receive a free education. Chudacoff paints the picture of these facilities throughout his article and appeals to the reader’s pathos by descriptively showing the reader how college athletes really do live like millionaires.

Day in and day out college athletes work endlessly in practice, school and work without any type of reward. Over the past couple of decades universities have attempted to get the NCAA to allow these universities to give student athletes some type of money for their work and dedication. In John Nocera’s NY Times article, “A Way to Start Paying College Athletes,” he uses strong logical reasoning and credible sources to effectively educate his audience. However, he drastically changes his tone when discussing certain ideas, by indirectly calling out those who do not believe in his way of paying college athletes.

It is an age old debate on whether a college athlete should be paid. It is a high school student 's dream to play sports at the collegiate level. Many people question why the NCAA, coaches, and administrators are allowed to earn large amounts of money while the student athlete’s hard work and efforts are limited to a scholarship. Others feel that is should be considered a privilege that a college athlete can earn a college degree while enjoying what they love, by playing collegiate sports. Student athletes should not receive payment because they are already receiving payment in the form of an expensive athletic scholarship and are also able to receive the new cost of attendance stipend to assist with further financial burdens.

The debate has been going on for nearly a hundred years, with several lawsuits and court hearings still happening to this day. Even though some progress is being made, most people still think more reform is necessary. Many people believe the term amateurism is dead, arguing that college athletes are not amateurs and should be paid for their commitment for their school. Other people, on the other hand, argue that they are students first, and should be focusing on their academics, and paying them would make sports first and education a second priority. They also argue that athletes are already paid with scholarships that cover book fees, housing and meal plans. This report is dedicated to recognizing and understanding both sides, while allowing the reader to make a decision on both sides based on information provided.