September 7, 2014
Should Student Athletes Be Compensated
Today college football and basketball generate more than the National Basketball Association a total of more than 6 billion dollars annually. These student-athletes are the main attraction of a multibillion dollar sports entertainment empire. President of NCAA Mark Emmert argues a "key factor of not paying athletes is to keep amateur status of its reputation." 1 By definition Amateur is defined in the Webster dictionary as "person who engages in a study or sport rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons." The idea of amateurism and the huge profits that the NCAA is bringing in annually do not mix and are in fact very hypocritical. To not pay these players a percentage of the revenue they bring in or at least give them full medical coverage is absolutely absurd. Some writers like Stanley Eitzen have even compared the system to "indentured servitude," Or a "plantation system."2
In this essay I will be explaining why I believe these athletes should in fact be compensated.
Although a main argument for not paying these collegiate athletes embodies the fact that they are student athletes, the truth is that with a typical day including individual practices, team practices, weight training, film room, travel and competition these students are more professional than amateur athletes. The NCAA even destroys its own devotion to amateurism by the rigorous restraints put on the players to conduct themselves like professionals out in town, in interviews, by selling video game licenses, game merchandise, and video game footage. Which all gets back to the NCAA as a direct profit. This essay is not meant to create a payment plan for players. Neither is it meant to say certain players are entitled to millions in compensation. The point is...