Persuasive Essay on College Athletes Should Be Paid

Student-athletes sacrifice a lot of time and effort to be where they are. During the week, these athletes will participate in very challenging practices and games while also having to perform well in school. All the responsibilities of a student-athlete, in addition to maintaining a life outside of school, is a full-time task. In division-one schools the big question is, do these athletes deserve to be paid?

College level athletes always have very loaded schedules. Every day, these athletes have a lot of different tasks to complete. Some of these tasks include, workouts, practices, games, homework, social lives, and some even have jobs.  The duties of a student-athlete can be overwhelming and saying that they work hard is an understatement. Surely, all this hard work must be paying off for the athletes, right?

Unfortunately for the athletes, they aren’t allowed to be paid for their involvement in any school’s athletic programs. A lot of people have a problem with this because the athletes produce so much revenue for the NCAA, but they get none of it. The NCAA governs intercollegiate athletics, and they make a lot of money doing it. For example, in the 2010-2011 fiscal year, the president of the NCAA, Mark Emmert, said that the projected total revenue for said year was 757 million dollars. Of that amount, 452.2 million dollars was distributed to division-one schools (Johnson).

Because of the restriction on paying student-athletes, some of these players that don’t have very big scholarships may have to try to find jobs, which just adds to their busy week. If the athletes were compensated through their programs, it would eliminate the need for them to get jobs. In turn, they would be able to focus more on their sports and classes. Also, there would be more job openings for the students who have more available schedules than student-athletes. This is especially good news for normal students because majority of them don’t have big scholarships either.

Speaking of scholarships, every year the 30 biggest universities in the country generate over 100 million dollars each. However, most of the universities spend more money than they make, on scholarships and expenses related to their programs. Even though these colleges make so much money, they spend even more. Paying the athletes would mean other, smaller, athletic programs will eventually get cut to keep the programs that generate money alive (Mcdavis). 

Sponsorships are another way that players could be paid without the school’s revenue being affected. Star athletes who have their name out there are likely to be known by some of the top sports brands. The issue is that the players aren’t allowed to receive any revenue from their involvement with the school. If a player is caught accepting money from their involvement with the school, they can have their scholarship revoked and even get expelled from the school. So, with sponsorships not being a realistic option, athletes will want to work hard for scholarships instead.

If the payment of athletes was allowed, competition among athletes for scholarships and sponsorships will increase. Increased competition often leads to an increase in the usage of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). This competition would all be taking place at the high school level in this scenario. Now, you’re looking at high school age athletes taking hormones at a critical point in their life, all for a shot at playing at a division-one school. A dangerous epidemic among teens could develop if we begin paying division-one athletes, but that’s not all. 

Still assuming that student-athletes are allowed to be paid, most colleges wouldn’t be able to keep up with the big ones that make hundreds of millions of dollars. Star athletes would go to the big schools because they’ll make the most money there. After a while of this process, super teams would form from the big schools, generating more and more income from viewership and sponsorships. The big universities will just continue recruiting star players because they have the power to do so, and the cycle repeats. Small universities would eventually be drowned out and the big guys will be running the show (Mcdavis). 

Enlarging the pool of money available for scholarships to athletes, would decrease the pool of money available for scholarships to normal students. In terms of fairness, that decision does not make sense. Normal students need money just as much as student-athletes, if not worse. If one college offers a bigger scholarship than another, the student will likely go to that school, disregarding other variables. 

The NCAA makes a ton of money from fans watching athletics, and so do the universities. However, while players are the main source of the revenue, the expenses to cover all the universities’ programs and scholarships make it unfavorable to pay athletes. Paying division-one athletes would indirectly end up promoting a dangerous amount of competition for young athletes. It would also hurt many other universities, causing them to close an enormous number of athletic programs in the long run. Said universities are likely to lose a chunk of their student body as well. There are more reasons to restrict athletes getting paid than not. It would be unfair, unsafe, and a flat-out bad idea.  

Works Cited

Johnson, Dennis A., and John Acquaviva. "Point/counterpoint: paying college athletes." The Sport Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, annual 2012. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A322563607/AONE?u=anke52316&sid=oclc&xid=e3899b0c. Accessed 4 Oct. 2021.

Mcdavis, Cody J. “Don't Pay College Athletes.” The New York Times, 26 Feb. 2019, p. A23(L). Gale Academic OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A575860557/AONE?u=anke52316&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=630b749c. Accessed 4 Oct. 2021.