Rhetorical Analysis OfCollege Athletes Should Not Be Paid

In The Washington Post Sally Jenkins writes a column titled “rather than pay athletes, show them respect”. Jenkins talks about the age old question of “should college athletes be paid?”. She wants us to consider who college athletes really are and to see that they are worth our respect and much more.

For about a decade, the debate between whether collegiate athletes should be paid while playing has been contemplated. Now, the focus has moved from all sports to two specific areas, football and men’s basketball. Sprouting from many court cases filed against the NCAA to some ugly sandals dealing with the athletes themselves. In the 2010 – 2011 time frame, this controversy really sparked up chatter; eventually leading the current pled for sport reformation. Our student athletes are the ones who are at the expense here stuck in between this large argument. Over the past 10 years, there has been minor things done for either side and the players themselves have started taking things into their own hands. The year 2010 a total of 7 student

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.

With the universities pulling in more than twelve billion dollars, the rate of growth for college athletics surpasses companies like McDonalds and Chevron (Finkel, 2013). The athletes claim they are making all the money, but do not see a dime of this revenue. The age-old notion that the collegiate athletes are amateurs and students, binds them into not being paid by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). This pay for play discussion has been talked about since the early 1900s but recently large steps are being made to actually make a change. There are many perspectives on the payment of collegiate student athletes coming from the NCAA, the athletes themselves, and the university officials.

Harker said, “On some campuses the pursuit of athletic dominance has eroded the ideal of the student athlete.” The Delaware coach explains how those student athletes already face problems being students before athletes and he believes that if athletes were to be paid it would distract the students even more. In sum, Harker is stating that athletes do not have to sacrifice their free education to reach their full potential as college athletes. College is a time where young adults learn the values of responsibility and realize that education will have a more positive impact on their future than sports.

The NCAA believes “that a student-athlete is a student first and athlete second.” Student-athletes benefit more than from playing a sport that they love. The graduation rate is higher among the student athletes than the general student body. “NCAA studies show that student-athletes enjoy high levels of engagement in academics, athletics and community: have positive feeling about their overall athletics and academic experiences: attribute invaluable life skills to being a student-athlete: and are more likely to earn similar or higher wages after college than non-student athletes.”

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.

Howard P. Chudacoff, a professor of history at Brown University, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal titled, “Let’s Not Pay College Athletes.” Chudacoff outlines the reasons why athletes in the major two collegiate sports, football and men’s basketball, that participate in a power five conference; Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big XII, Southeastern, and PAC-12 Conferences: should not be paid for their services to their institutions. Chudacoff provides examples of academic centers and practice facilities to strengthen his point that collegiate athletes are given enough royalties to go along with a free education.

Several times throughout the article he seems to have a tone that hurts his credibility and arguments, by saying “It is ludicrous to argue that the Power 5 programs cannot afford this.” This harsh, unintentional bashing at others who do not believe in what the author is saying hurts his claim and argument by talking down to his audience; as if they do not know what they are reading. Another remark he makes is, “the appeal of college athletics, in no small part, is that the players are students at the universities, so they would still have to take classes. But their loads should be reduced during their years of eligibility, and once their playing days are over, they should be able to finish their education free. That’s only fair.” Here the author is almost stating that regular non college student athletes are not at the same level of importance as the athletes, possibly making some readers frustrated that these athletes get the easy road throughout college. Also, by saying they will be able to go to college free after playing, makes students going to school after graduating for a higher degree feel unimportant and unprivileged compared to the

College athletes generate millions of dollars for their schools each year, yet they are not allowed to be compensated beyond a scholarship due to being considered amateurs. College athletes are some of the hardest working people in the nation, having to focus on both school courses and sports. Because athletics take so much time, these student-athletes are always busy. College football and basketball are multi-billion dollar businesses. The NCAA does not want to pay the athletes beyond scholarships, and it would be tough to work a new compensation program into the NCAA and university budgets. College athletes should be compensated in some form because they put in so much time and effort, generating huge amounts of revenue.

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.

The term “student-athlete,” coined by Walter Byers and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, has been frequently mentioned and used in intense arguments between the NCAA and former and current students (Nocera, 1). Today’s student-athletes are expected to be students first and athletes second, but when these athletes are forced to undergo countless hours of preparation for the big lights on Saturday in order to retain their scholarships, they often must ignore their studies. These athletes do not have the time to maintain jobs and make money because of their stressful schedules. The NCAA, an organization that the federal government qualifies as non-profit, makes nearly $1 billion a year and gives absolutely none of that money to the true makers of revenue, the athletes (primarily those in Division I football and men’s basketball). The only compensation that athletes receive for their work is scholarship money, which may be deemed priceless for one’s future but is really only worth $25,000 a year. Universities, television networks, and the NCAA are ignoring that college athletics is a real business (Jackson, 1). The educational benefits do not provide these athletes with food for their tables, money for their families, or even beds to sleep in. Student-athletes are commonly forced to take benefits from alumni, fans who have money, and their own coaches, despite it being an NCAA violation. Because college sports serve as one of America’s most profitable

Colleges being a learning institution, they are purposed to provide the students with the much relevant education to establish them for their future career. However, the educational professionals realized the need to nurture talents identified in learning institutions hence the introduction of sports as co-curriculum activities meaning they do not form part of the fundamental purpose of college. For many years, college athletes have been paid a considerable amount of money by their respective colleges. However, they fail to conceive that college is not a place of work but rather aimed at furthering education to attain new heights career-wise. Moreover, there is no known college big or small that has the sufficient resources to pay the

In “Student athlete adequately completely compensated with scholarship” Hunter Larzelere, is a student editor for the University Star newspaper. Because Larzelere attends Texas State University, he values education and believes that the opportunities athletes receive of a “quality education[,] is a gift that many would certainly appreciate”(Larzelere para. 7). This is important because he is stating that athletes devalue the subsidize education they receive. Moreover, his statement implies that athletes, instead of seeing themselves as students first they, see themselves as individuals that require a salary. In addition, Larzelere argues that paying student athletes would send the signal that universities value sports over education. He arises to

There has been amplified debate on the treatment, education, training of the college athlete. To avoid exploitation of athletes, “The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), formed in 1905, set bylaws requiring college student-athletes to be amateurs in order to be eligible for intercollegiate athletics competition” (Schneider n.p.). Intercollegiate athletics have dramatically changed over the last several decades. Currently, intercollegiate athletics generate tremendous amounts of revenue, remarkably in football and basketball. College sports in America is a