The
argument for paying collegiate athletes find its basis largely in the structure
of athletic programs and the salaries of coaches, franchises, and media that
own the players’ performances. Furthermore, these athletes spend their lives
focusing on their abilities, yet they make no money. If collegiate sports did
not make a profit, it would be more reasonable for players to compete without
compensation. Additionally, competitors are putting their health and bodies at
risk in order to participate while expecting nothing in return. The argument
against paying college athletes emphasizes the nature of education as a
privilege that requires dedication and hard work academically, rather than an
advantage bestowed on those that will increase the university’s prestige and
revenue. Athletes contribute to the spirit of the college, but should they be
paid for simple athleticism as opposed to working toward their higher
education?
I believe
collegiate athletes should be paid for their time and lifestyle commitments, as
well as the risk to their personal health. However, these ‘salaries’ should be
capped to ensure the franchise is not over-paying for talent that has no other
contribution to the university itself. Furthermore, these players receiving
compensation for their athletic contribution should also meet certain
requirements, such as maintaining a substantial GPA and participating in
additional programs through the university. While I believe athletes deserve
payment for their commitment, it should not be bestowed based solely on
participation in an athletic program.