WHY COLLEGE ATHLETES SHOULD BE PAID

College athletics is a multi-billion dollar industry. In 2019, the NCAA reported revenues of $1.1 billion, with $840 million of that coming from football alone. And the money is only going up. With the advent of streaming services and new television contracts, the NCAA and its member schools are raking in more money than ever before.

But while the coffers of the NCAA and its member schools are overflowing, the athletes who generate all this revenue are being left behind. College athletes are not allowed to receive any compensation beyond a scholarship, and they are often forced to work long hours in addition to their athletic and academic commitments.

This is a system that is fundamentally unfair. College athletes are the ones who are putting their bodies on the line and generating the revenue, but they are not the ones who are reaping the benefits. It's time for that to change.

The Arguments Against Paying College Athletes

There are a number of arguments that are often raised against paying college athletes.

• Argument 1: Paying college athletes would commercialize college sports and ruin the amateur experience.
• Argument 2: Paying college athletes would lead to a decrease in academic standards.
• Argument 3: Paying college athletes would create a two-tier system, with the wealthy schools being able to pay their athletes more than the poor schools.

Rebutting the Arguments Against Paying College Athletes

Let's take a closer look at these arguments and see why they don't hold water:

Argument 1: Paying college athletes would commercialize college sports and ruin the amateur experience.

This argument is based on the assumption that college sports are inherently pure and that paying athletes would somehow taint that purity. But the reality is that college sports have been commercialized for decades. The NCAA is a multi-billion dollar business, and schools make millions of dollars from their athletic programs.

Paying college athletes would not ruin the amateur experience. If anything, it would make it better. Athletes would be able to focus more on their sport and less on working to make ends meet. They would also be more likely to stay in school and graduate, which would benefit both the athletes and the schools.

Argument 2: Paying college athletes would lead to a decrease in academic standards.

This argument is based on the assumption that college athletes are not capable of balancing their athletic and academic commitments. But there is no evidence to support this assumption. In fact, studies have shown that college athletes actually have higher GPAs than the general student population.

Paying college athletes would not lead to a decrease in academic standards. If anything, it would make it easier for athletes to succeed in the classroom. Athletes would be able to afford better tutors and academic support, and they would have more time to focus on their studies.

Argument 3: Paying college athletes would create a two-tier system, with the wealthy schools being able to pay their athletes more than the poor schools.

This argument is based on the assumption that the NCAA is a meritocracy, and that the best teams deserve to win. But the reality is that the NCAA is not a meritocracy. The schools with the most money are the ones that win the most championships.

Paying college athletes would not create a two-tier system. If anything, it would level the playing field. The schools with the most money would still have an advantage, but the poor schools would be able to compete on a more level playing field.

The Benefits of Paying College Athletes

There are a number of benefits to paying college athletes.

• Athletes would be able to focus more on their sport and less on working to make ends meet.
• Athletes would be more likely to stay in school and graduate.
• Paying college athletes would help to level the playing field between the wealthy schools and the poor schools.
• Paying college athletes would generate more revenue for the NCAA and its member schools.

Conclusion

The arguments against paying college athletes are weak and outdated. It's time for the NCAA to do the right thing and start paying its athletes.

FAQs

1. Why should college athletes be paid?
   College athletes are the ones who are generating the revenue for the NCAA and its member schools, but they are not the ones who are reaping the benefits. It's time for that to change.

2. What are the arguments against paying college athletes?
   The arguments against paying college athletes are that it would commercialize college sports, ruin the amateur experience, lead to a decrease in academic standards, and create a two-tier system.

3. How would paying college athletes benefit them?
   Paying college athletes would allow them to focus more on their sport and less on working to make ends meet. It would also make them more likely to stay in school and graduate.

4. How would paying college athletes benefit the NCAA and its member schools?
   Paying college athletes would help to level the playing field between the wealthy schools and the poor schools. It would also generate more revenue for the NCAA and its member schools.

5. What are some of the challenges to paying college athletes?
   One of the challenges to paying college athletes is determining how much they should be paid. Another challenge is finding a way to pay athletes without creating a two-tier system.