Rhetorical Analysis Of The Documentary Schooled : The Price Of College Sports

The hot topic in amateur sports has been as to whether or not college athletes should be paid. The NCAA amateur rule states that an athlete in college sports cannot be paid other than their athletic scholarship. These athletes spend a tremendous amount of time at school practice and then working on schoolwork after practice. The NCAA is an organization that oversees all of the athletes that make up the basic unit of intercollegiate sports. The success of the NCAA whether it’s through the sale of merchandise, game day revenue or NCAA tournaments that each individual sports has, despite the absolute success of these tournaments these athletes receive any monetary compensation .Some of the main reasons why the NCAA lack of payments are that it wants to maintain its amateur status and

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) makes roughly $1 billion in income annually and the athletes do not receive any of it. This topic has been debated for many years and is still being debated. The debate dates back to the 1980s and now athletes are demanding that they deserve to be paid since profits are made off of them. Some athletes such as former and current basketball and football players came together with lawsuits to federal courts asking for rewards from profits NCAA makes gets of them. Research has opened several different opinions on this matter. There are many pros and cons for paying college athletes. College sports provide a huge source of the university’s income. The athletes, however, receive their scholarship

College athletes are undoubtedly some of the hardest working people in the world. Not only are they living the life of an average student, they also have a strenuous schedule with their specific sport. One of the most discussed topics in the world of college athletics is whether or not student-athletes should be paid money for playing sports. The people who disagree with the idea have some good arguments to make. Primarily that the athletes get to go to school for free for playing sports. Another argument is that if student-athletes were to get paid then it would ruin the amateurism of college sports. People who are against paying the athletes do not want to see the young people become focused on money. “Paying student-athletes

College sports have a big market on the major school levels. These major schools can bring in 30 to 40 million dollars per year to the school through the athletic programs. The players get none of this share of money even though they are the ones who have to put themselves at risk during these tough games that provide the school profit. You may say that these college athletes are getting a free education at their choice of university but some many say they should get paid. Today as much money that runs in and out of these schools there is a huge controversy to whether or not these student athletes should get rewarded for their hard work on and off the

How much harder would athletes work if they were paid for their performance on the field, track, or court? College athletes are put to the test each and everyday, they risk their health to entertain millions day in and day out. College athletes deserve part of the money due to the revenue they bring in for their schools and for the NCAA, they deserve the money because they do not have time to get a job because they are practicing and training at least 40 hours a week, they should also get paid because they are used as marketing models for the ncaa and for their universities. College athletes also should not get paid because they are already getting paid in scholarship money. College athletes deserve to get paid because they are putting their bodies on the line just so the NCAA and their sponsors can make money.

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.

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

College athletics are becoming more like the professional leagues except for one big issue, money. Student athletes bring in a vast amount of revenue for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) not to mention recognition and notoriety regarding the athlete’s university. However, the debate continues as to whether student athletes should or should not receive payment for playing college sports.

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.

In April of 2013 the article by Seth Davis titled, “Should College Athletes be Paid? Why, They Already Are” was published in Sports Illustrated. In this article Davis goes over why college athletes shouldn’t be paid because they already are being paid by scholarships. Over the course of his article he uses different audience appeals to help with the effectiveness of the points being made. Seth Davis does an outstanding job at informing readers of Sports Illustrated about his opinion of the way college athletes are already getting paid. Davis gets his point across by using Pathos and logos effectively. Not only does Davis use pathos and logos effectively but he uses another article by Taylor Branch to help support his argument even further.

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.

Marc Edelman is firm believer that college athletes deserve the right to get paid without any issues involving taxing scholarships. Edelman states as his thesis, “This movement to allow athletes to share in the revenues of college sports arises from the belief that college athletes sacrifice too much time, personal autonomy, and physical health to justify their lack of pay” (1139). He supports his claim with facts about the amount of revenue college athletics brings into a school. “The college sports industry represents a more than eleven billion-dollar U.S. enterprise” (Edelman 1141). Without athletes, there would be no revenue coming in so athletes deserve a portion of the revenue. He also supports the devotion to the spot by stating, “In these sports, the star athletes devote upwards of forty hours per week to team travel, play, and practice” (Edelman 1141). The amount of time put into the specific sport is equivalent to a normal week of work. Another key point expressed is

There is a reality to college athletes participating in men's basketball and football. The reality is these athletes are being exploited, and as argued by Stanley Eitzen, they are being exploited much like slaves during the years of the plantation system. It is an idea created by Eitzen that seams overdrawn, but makes significant parallels to that of the plantation system. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) preserves the plantation system, providing the rules that protect the interests of the individual plantation overseers. The plantations are football and men's basketball factories within the universities with big-time programs. The plantation overseers are college coaches who receive hard labor from their workers. The workers on the plantation are owned by the plantation, they produce riches for their masters while receiving a meager amount of return on the profits of the plantation. Being exploited for their physical abilities is not the only injustice hindering these athletes. They are controlled, managed, and dominated by their superiors. They are restricted in their rights to freedom, and in some cases mistreated physically and mentally (Eitzen).

One of the most controversial subjects we as individuals hear about this day in age is whether or not college athletes deserve to be paid. Many people argue that these athletes do intact, deserve to be paid for their time and hard work. NCAA athletes create a name for themselves by playing and performing well on their college teams. The better these athletes perform, the more publicity the school revives. This then leads to higher ticket sales and stores around campus selling jerseys and other clothing items with athletes names and numbers on the back. NCAA schools have become comfortable with using athletes’ names to bring in a revenue for the school, and yet the athletes never see any of that money. On the other hand, many people believe that these athletes do not deserve, nor should they expect to receive payment in return. They believe that these scholarships and the education are payment in itself. Some even bring up the question on if it is affordable or even realistic to pay college athletes.

Is an athletic scholarship really enough of a “payment” to reimburse athletes for the billions of dollars made by the NCAA every year? This issue of paying collegiate athletes, especially football and basketball players, has been around for many years. Athletes, students, bystanders, and NCAA analysts and authority figures have a strong opinion about paying college athletes. Whether college athletes should be paid or not is a debate topic that is more prevalent today than ever.