To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Over the past several decades, Division I athletes have poured their heart and soul into the sports they love. Endless hours of dedication and hard work have brought them to the pinnacle of their chosen discipline, earning them a spot at a university where they can showcase their skills and talents. However, when athletes reach the Division I level, the dynamics shift – it becomes more than a passion; it becomes a business. The primary expectation is to bring in profits for the university.
This essay delves into the controversial question that has lingered in the minds of athletes and sports enthusiasts alike: should students who play a sport receive extra compensation for their efforts as college athletes? Contrary to some opinions, the argument is against paying student-athletes. This perspective is grounded in the understanding that these athletes already receive valuable scholarships, commit to a National Letter of Intent, and prioritize their roles as students before athletes.
One of the fundamental reasons against paying college athletes lies in the substantial benefits that come with athletic scholarships.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Paying College Athletes
5 (876)
“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”
According to the NCAA (2011), a mere two percent of high school athletes are awarded athletic scholarships to compete at the college level. Attaining this opportunity is not only a privilege but also a significant achievement. Playing at the collegiate level represents the pinnacle of competition for most athletes.
These scholarships encompass various facets, including tuition, books, food, and housing. They are not merely financial aids; they are comprehensive packages that extend well beyond monetary compensation.
On average, athletic scholarships are valued at over $100,000 per year (The Sport Digest, 2002-2010). Additionally, student-athletes receive an array of benefits, such as free tutors, scheduling advantages, access to trainers, strength and conditioning coaches, as well as free facilities, clothing, and equipment. When considering all these elements, the total value for student-athletes can surpass $150,000 annually.
The argument against paying student-athletes is grounded in the understanding that these athletes already receive substantial compensation through scholarships and additional benefits, rendering the notion of direct payment unnecessary.
Another critical aspect in the debate is the National Letter of Intent, a contractual agreement signed by athletes committing to play for a university in exchange for a scholarship. Student-athletes are well aware of the conditions and restrictions outlined in this contract, including the prohibition of receiving extra benefits from external organizations.
By signing the National Letter of Intent, athletes commit not only to represent the university but also to act as ambassadors for the companies sponsoring the university and the team. Major brands such as Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour often sponsor both the institution and the individual athlete. This symbiotic relationship extends beyond the financial aspect, with athletes receiving various products such as clothing, shoes, and equipment as part of their sponsorship.
The commitment made through the National Letter of Intent underscores the notion that student-athletes are representing something larger than themselves; they are representing the university, its sponsors, and the values associated with collegiate sports.
Crucially, college athletes are students first and athletes second. Their primary focus is on obtaining an education while simultaneously pursuing their athletic endeavors. This dual commitment sets college athletics apart from professional sports where the emphasis is solely on the sport itself.
Allowing student-athletes to receive direct payment could lead to a shift in priorities, jeopardizing the educational aspect of their college experience. Scholarships were not intended merely to attract top athletes who lack an interest in education but to facilitate the education of those who may not otherwise have the means to attend (Bleacher Report, Nov. 20, 2011).
Moreover, the potential for athletes to negotiate business deals and salaries with universities introduces a commercial element that could compromise the educational integrity of these institutions. This shift in focus from education to financial negotiations may alter the landscape of college athletics, turning universities into businesses rather than centers for education and personal development.
In conclusion, the debate on whether college athletes should be paid is complex and multifaceted. However, the foundational principles of scholarships, the commitments outlined in the National Letter of Intent, and the prioritization of education over direct compensation argue against paying student-athletes. College athletes play for the love of the game, and the current system provides them with substantial benefits that extend beyond monetary value.
As an anonymous quote aptly expresses, "We play because every moment that we are on the field is a minute where all of our problems disappear. We play for that one game when all the hours of practicing come together and our play is flawless. We play because we were born to play. We play because we love the game."
The Ongoing Debate: Should College Athletes be Paid. (2016, Aug 15). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/why-college-athletes-should-not-be-paid-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
