Should college athletes get paid? NO (Jim Joyce sucks btw)
My buddy tells me that has to write a paper this week, I ask him what about, he says "whether or not college athletes should get paid". I said hell no they shouldn't! He says they should since they bring in so much money to the university. Yeah! They money they're earning is going towards funding for all the things they get for free, including: classes, travel, food, housing, classroom maintinance, and all the sports facilities that don't cost you a cent! All of this is free, so do your best to use it all wisely and you will end up being paid after you get out of college! What do you all think on this issue?
There's more to being a FB player than money, like intangibles. I know it's an old pic, but this girls intangibles are off the charts.
I'm all for savings yourself if that's your thing, but I cannot believe Tebow was able to hold out. He could have had ANYONE at that school, or in the state for that matter. I'd be all over her intangibles. I guess that's why he's 'The Chosen One' or whatever.
If we're going to have a serious discussion about this, I think we should first establish exactly what players get.
A full-ride includes: tuition, room, board, money for books and supplies.
Now, what does "room and board" entitle? Is there a stipend involved that should cover rent, utilities, food, spending cash? Or is it strictly re-imbursement (don't think so). If so, maybe that stipend really is plenty and does cover living expenses for an average college student. If that's the case, I think the free education (~100K) is basically paying athletes.
You also have to consider other sports: Most other NCAA athletes don't have full rides. They have partial scholarships. These students don't bring in any money for the university (these sports cost the school money), so how do you account for that? Do you give football players extra money, but not softball players? That doesn't seem fair.
EDIT: According to Tate's offer letter, a full-ride includes:
- Tuition and registration fees
- Required course-related fees
- Room
- Meals
- Required Textbooks
The only thing missing, to me, is spending money. No offense, but football players already have a very special priveledge: almost everyone on the team gets a FULL ride. Other than basketball, no other teams/student-athletes get this priveledge. So, NO they shouldn't be paid - they are already being given quite a damn bit.
Plus, if the only reason you need money while at school is for spending money (since, as seen above, everything else, including meals, is covered), well... that's what summer jobs are for. Even football players have some time to get a job. During the season? No. But during the summer why not? If the only thing you need to spend money on is unneccessary expenses, I think you're just fine.
Don't forget health care. Better coverage than anyone else on campus.
Players do get quite a bit; that's not at issue. At issue, at least for me, is should they get more?
Participants in non-revenue sports get more than they otherwise would and are not in a situation of exploitation like Football and Men's Basketball are; no one is out there trying to turn a buck on Duke Lacrosse. They are a net financial burden on the athletic program but the school continues participation in the sport for numerous justifiable and logical reasons. I think whatever a player gets is reasonable in this situation.
In the big time sports though, it's complete BS. Nike, Adidas, Reebok, Under Armor, Tostitos, ATT, Nokia, Fed Ex, CBS, Electronic Arts, Disney... all make mad money on the backs of student athletes. This is not wholly different from a sweat shop situation (though admittedly pretty far from the same).
The universities are choosing to relax their admission standards to let these guys in. They are choosing to give them full financial aid. They aren't forced to do either of those things but they do; more power to them.
Everyone is making out here except the players. I don't think its fair though for all of these other parties to profiteer from their efforts without breaking off a proper and modest chunk for these guys. Make sure they have a guaranteed opportunity to complete a degree. Make sure they'll be cared for if they suffer brain damage. Give them a modest amount of money to contribute to their retirements.
Finally, paying them will help neutralize the attraction to take seek money through unscrupulous means (boosters, dirty recruiting, etc).
This notion of exploitation is ridiculous. What percentage of the 18-22 y/o population in this country earns the kind of compensation that college football and basketball players get? They are in the top .05%, I promise you that. Only in America do the poor own TVs and cars, and only in America is a free college education, free shelter, free food, and free health care considered "exploitation."
You argue that football players and basketball players should get more than lacrosse players and, say, swimmers, because they create more money. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, you'll need to sit down and determine the value of every individual player, because it's absurd to say that the backup punter is creating as much wealth for others as the quarterback.
You're trying to build another straw-man here and it's another shoddy one at that. Then again, aren't they all? If you think players aren't being exploited, that's your prerogative. I doubt my ability to convince you otherwise.
My reply to your points is, what percencate of the 18-22 y/o population is directly and critically involved in multi-billion dollar industries? Who the hell is talking about poor people here? I'm talking about the people specifically involved in athletic competition. I'm not saying we should make these guys millionaires.
I reject that the notion that individual contribution needs to be determined. The objective of maintaining a reasonably level playing field over rides the objective of fair treatment in this case and in my opinion. If elite players would rather get all or nothing, cool; the status quo will be preserved and they'll continue to get nothing while literally everyone else involved make millions. If you don't define that as exploitation, I'd love to hear your definition.
"Literally everyone else involved will make millions." Again with the absurd hyperbole. Video assistants don't make millions. QC guys don't make millions. Administration worker bees don't make millions. The fans, who are the ones putting money into the system in the first place, don't make millions. Even the vast majority of coaches don't. "Literally everyone" - that's a bullshit claim and you know it....and you claim I'm the one setting up straw men.
Equally bullshit is the idea that the players get nothing. Have you ever paid your way through college or what?
What does this conversation have to do with my personal situation? I'm not an athlete and I wasn't the catalyst for billions of dollars.
Also, where did I say that players aren't getting anything? That notion is indeed bullshit, but that's not my argument, so you're arguing against yourself apparently. All I'm saying is that they are being given the bare minimum and only because it's in the best interest of the university to field a competitive squad. I think they can be reasonably and justifiably be given more in the forms I've described previously. .
We can haggle all day about how much more, but, frankly, our discussion would be irrelevant because we're not the ones who would decide anything. However, if we are indeed haggling over how much more players should get, then I've made my point and the original question that was posed has been answered.
I could, and would, argue that all those companies - Nike, Disney, EA, etc - are making money off the schools, not the players.
Everyone is making out here except the players.
How can you say this when football players on each team collectively take home over $3M per year in tuition fees, stipends, etc?!
That's not even considering the post-college value of a degree! And you compare this to the working conditions of sweatshop workers?!
Come on ,Tom; a Michigan jersey has little value to Nike if it weren't because of Tom Harmon, Anthony Carter, Desmond Howard, Charles Woodson, Braylon Edwards, Chad Henne, and friends. Without the players, the golden goose would die. Please argue against that.
On the other point, I already said that the sweat shop analogy was illustrative only. The $3M figure (or whatever the real tag is) is the cost of doing business for the university. If they want to spend less, they can. But they don't, why? Why are so many programs willing to spend more? Basically its the cost of the wheat needed to make bread.
From the player persepective their compensation is provided in the form of an non-tranferable educational voucher. That is indeed very valuable, but much less so when there is no guarantee that the player will indeed be able to complete his degree. I direct you to Alabama as a case in point; 26 recruits from the previous 4 years get screwed "ethically." When they get cut, do their credits transfer to another school? Would Michigan honor all of Star Jackson's credits if he wanted to continue his education at Michigan in exchange for his athletic talents? What if they guy ends up with Parkinson's disease later in life...will his medical costs be paid by Michigan, Nike, or the NCAA?
Should the workers of Ford be satisfied with being given free vouchers for a Fiesta? I mean, it's compensation, right?
I think I've made my position clear and I acknowledge the difficulties you present. However, I do not think that those difficulties are an acceptable argument for inaction in this case.
As a former college athlete, I would have loved to have been given some money. No matter the sport, they are all like a full-time job. I will say this though, college athletes, at least those on full scholarship already do get paid. As was already stated, the scholarship includes room and meals. If an athlete lives off campus and doesn't eat in the dining halls, they receive a monthly check from the university that is equivalent to the standard expenses of room and meals. Most of the time, rent is much less than what you would pay in the dorms. When I was in college, I knew some athletes that were getting over $1,000 a month, and this was at a MAC school. I'd imagine at a place like UM, the cost of dorms and meals are much more. So, say these guys are getting $2,000 a month and rent is only $400. That's a bit of spending money they have left over, even after food expenses.
With all that said, I also knew quite a few guys who had a tough time just getting by. If their family didn't have money, life was pretty tough, living "paycheck" to "paycheck" especially if you were a guy/girl not on a full scholarship.
I tried to write a term paper on the subject, but my ethics professor told me that the only way I would pass was if I could provide evidence that what the players is already compensated isn't enough to compensate what Universities are making. By making them paid, you enter a whole new realm of taxes, health insurance (beyond what is covered), unemployment benefits for players who cannot compete a la Saban/medical injuries, potential liability on medical injuries on future work, and a laundry list of other things. The professor if I didn't have at least 20 pages of imperical evidence, I would fail.