College athletes; these students do nothing short of put their whole heart into their sport of choice. However, this introduces a particular conundrum — are the scholarships that Division 1 student-athletes receive sufficient compensation for the amount of money that the athlete brings into the school? The answer is that they are sufficiently compensated with their scholarships alone. This issue is important because it’s being debated constantly by stakeholders. The result of the conflict will have enormous effects on the culture of college sports, the role of the college athlete, and the construction of the NCAA. This paper, in particular, will explore the ethicality behind the payment of college athletes on top of their previously established scholarships. This lens can be seen through the perspectives of college athletes, other college students who are not paid by the school, and NCAA representatives. Each of these stakeholders has their own differing opinions on this argument.
To begin, college athletes should not be paid because their peers would be put at a disadvantage and faced with inequity. This argument is countered in the article “Student Can’t Be Paid and Play,” which states that “Revenue generated… could be used to pay for college costs beyond scholarship amounts, uncovered health insurance premiums, and family costs to travel to games.” [Magna Publications Inc., 2004] This quote argues that the expenses covered by the payment of college athletes are more valuable than the collegiate morale. This also states that, from the point of view of a college administrator or college athlete, payment of college athletes would be beneficial. The source cited can be proven as credible due to the fact that it was published in an official academic journal, thus showing that it is deemed as credible by other professionals in the field. This source is limited by the fact that it’s the author’s personal opinion. That being said, this counterclaim can be ultimately refuted because, ethically, while paying college athletes may include benefits for the college, those salaries will ultimately go on to entirely destroy any sense of equality or camaraderie between college athletes and their unpaid peers. As stated by Ekow Yankah on NPR, “Somehow when we think about young black athletes and what they do, the sort of physical talent that they bring is not valued the same way that the ballerina's is or the chess player's is, or the musician's is…” ([NPR, 2018]). This quote clearly shows that the collegiate environment would be in turmoil with the employment of its own students. It also shows that the unpaid college student in comparison to their employed peers would also be negatively affected by the decision to pay college athletes. The source is credible because it’s a popular independent publication with no history of bias. This source is limited because it’s the opinion of the author.
The payment of college athletes on top of their scholarships would also be unethical because it would alter the culture of college sports in a destructive fashion. The payment of college athletes would completely dissolve this system, and would thusly be unethical for multiple viewpoints involved, including college athletes, the NCAA, and even the fans of college sports. On the other hand, the argument that the culture of college sports is more important than the compensation of its athletes is not supported by everyone. This argument can be countered by a quote from Forbes, which states, “The big money sports… are big business… There is something wrong with the fact that the players aren't paid what they're worth.” [Carden, 2018] This quote shows that college athletes, as they bring in large sums of money to their colleges, should be compensated fairly. The stakeholders affected by this argument would be the college athletes themselves, along with some effects on their colleges. The source cited can be deemed credible as it is a non-affiliated, as well as minimally biased, if at all. That being said, this source is limited plainly due to the fact that it’s the opinionated writing of the author. This effect on college sports can be supported by a quote from The Odyssey, which states, “It would really ruin the culture of college sports. College students love college sports because the athletes are students… Money would separate the athletes from the student body.” [Jones, 2016] This quote states that the payment of college athletes would alter the entire system of the NCAA, possibly proving to be detrimental for everyone involved, which includes fans of college sports, college athletes, and the NCAA itself. This source, in particular, is credible because The Odyssey publication company has no corporal ties, as well as no previous evidence of any extremely biased speech, but this source is limited by the fact that it is writing based upon opinion. That being said, this source is limited plainly due to the fact that it’s the opinionated writing of the author. To sum up this topic of the argument at hand, the scholarships awarded to college athletes are sufficient compensation for their athletic efforts without any further payment because, if the athletes were paid, it would dismantle the culture of college sports — a culture based upon the pure enjoyment of playing a sport for the sport itself, not the check afterward.
Finally, college athletes should not be paid in excess of their scholarships because it would be unethical to employ college athletes when they should have their focus on getting an education. The most affected population would be the student-athletes themselves, with minimal effects placed on their colleges. Evidence to support this argument is found in an article from CNN, which states, “The overwhelming majority of college students… recognize that college is ultimately about getting a degree and getting ready for life long after their playing days are over. They're not exploited. They're educated.” [Ackerman and Scott, 2016] This quote explains that college athletes should ultimately be pushed to prioritize their education. The only stakeholder affected with this argument is the college athletes. One can see that this source is credible because of its independence and popularity, but its limitation is found in the fact that it’s a source based upon the author’s opinion. The argument that college athletes should not be paid can also be supported by this quote from the Huffington Post, which states “An overwhelming majority of NCAA student-athletes will make their living doing something else.” [Ryder, 2011] From this quote, one can determine the line of reasoning that many college athletes will not go on to play professionally, and will need to rely solely on their college education. The only stakeholder affected by this argument is the college athlete at hand. The source quoted can be deemed credible as it has little history of bias, as well as being quite popular, but it is limited in the sense that the source is based upon the opinion of its author. In the end, the payment of college athletes would be unethical as it would stunt the athlete’s college education as a whole, as the majority of college athletes don’t go on to play professionally, thus their education should be prioritized.
As expressed, the scholarships that Division 1 college athletes receive are sufficient compensation for their athletic efforts and the amount of money that they bring into the school. Some possible solutions for this argument would include putting an emphasis on the education of college athletes and the continued refusal of payment. In the end, the payment of college athletes would be too disruptive to the system of college sports and hand, as well as causing injustice and lackluster college educations from one student-athlete to another.