The Instigator
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
fire_wings
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

College Athletes Should Be Paid

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2016 Category: Sports
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 781 times Debate No: 92420
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

Danielle

Pro

I will begin my arguments in Round 2. I prefer to debate someone with experience.

If you are restricted from accepting this debate but have an interest, let me know!

The first round will be for my contender's acceptance. Good luck... and Go Scarlet Knights!!!
fire_wings

Con

I accept the debate.

The Burden of Proof is on Pro, because my opponent wants the change in the status quo, and currently college althletes . I am not required to make a constructive case, but I will provide few arguments just in case. But if I rebut my opponent's case, and if she rebuts mine, you have to give me the win because my arguments don't hold much burden than my opponent's.

I said the burden of proof is on Pro because she wants a change in the status quo. I want my opponent to write his definitons of the debate in the second round.

I accept this debate with a honorable debater. Let's debate this! :D
Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate.

I accept the burden of proof; I am in fact arguing a positive claim against the status quo.

College Athletes Should Be Paid

College athletes work hard. They spend an average of 43.3 hours dedicated to their sport per week [1]. Not only is this 3.3 hours longer than the average American work week, but college students often work harder academically than their peers as well. Because they often travel for games, they miss class and have to rely on tutors, not professors, or teach themselves the material and pass with decent grades in order to qualify for games. At some schools, the road to the NCAA men"s basketball championship may require student-athletes to miss up to a quarter of all class days during their Spring semester [2].

Furthermore, because they must also take classes and travel, they do not realistically have time for another job. As such, many college students are very poor and struggle to make ends meet while in college [3].

College athletes receive scholarships and other benefits, but this is not fair/optimal for several reasons. First, college athletes have different skill levels. In life, we are compensated based on our value. Our monetary value is determined by how much money we generate. Our value is also determined (in sports) by our ability to help the team win. Thus better athletes are worth more and should be paid more money; not all college athletes, including those on the same team, are worth the same amount. Since athletes already receive scholarships and other benefits, they are essentially being paid. Why not determine their value like you do in the real world?

On this point, paying college athletes would make the sports more competitive. Compensating players would encourage them to play harder, as the better they are, the more money they would make. Many college athletes are worth far more (based on talent and popularity) so it is not fair they are "paid" the same amount.

Professional athletes are notoriously bad with money [4]. By providing college athletes pay, it teaches them fiscal responsibility. It encourages them to figure out ways to support themselves while they are still under the strict guidance of parents and more importantly coaches and mentors.

Because many college athletes struggle, and are enticed by the allure of professional perks, a lot of college athletes violate the rules and receive some type of back-end compensation anyhow. Over 96 D-1 teams have been caught in the last decade alone [5]. Imagine all the ones that didn't get caught or penalized. Rather than turn a blind eye to what is rampant and justifiably so, paying college athletes and allowing them to cash in on the perks promotes honesty and up-front dealings. This is how we have accountability and ensure fairness, as opposed to having things going on behind closed doors and only penalize the ones who get caught.

Consider this: college sports is very lucrative. Advertisements, sponsorships, video games and ticket sales lead to huge profits for college teams worth tens of billions of dollars [6]. Why should athletes only be paid what their tuition is worth, when coaches and other people profit off the NCAA and make millions of dollars on the backs of the athletes? [7]

The athletes are the ones putting their bodies and lives on the line every single day. Indeed, football player Eric LeGrand from my alma matter, Rutgers University, suffered a devastating hit during a football game that has left him paralyzed [8]. Many college athletes suffer injury that prevents them from moving on with their college or professional athletic career. They sacrifice their bodies daily, and many suffer long-term negative effects. Over 96% of pro football players (who started in college) have some type of brain injury or deficit [9]. If they can make money while playing the sport, they should be able to while they still can. Their career can end at any day.

There is plenty of money to go around. The NCAA currently produces nearly $11 Billion in annual revenue from college sports " more than the estimated total league revenues of both the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League [10]. The NCAA is a multi-billion dollar business where the only people who are restricted in their earnings, are the athletes. That is not fair.

"This year, the University of Alabama reported $143.3 Million in athletic revenues " more than all 30 NHL teams and 25 of the 30 NBA teams. Much of the huge revenues collected from college athletics do not go directly back into the classroom. Instead, a substantial share of college sports" revenues stay "in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches" [11].

Success in college sports improves the school's notoriety, brand recognition and thus application rates. In turn this increases the caliber of admitted students at certain universities. For example, how many people on the East coast would know about Gonzaga if not for their popular athletics program? Athletes contribute to their schools and deserve to be paid for it. College sports are a huge park of many college's marketing and promotion [12]. It seems exploitative to use the athletes and compensate them so little compared to the value they bring in.

In the end, there are really no solid arguments as to why college athletes shouldn't be paid.

I look forward to hearing my opponents contentions, and explaining how college athletes can be paid. They should be.


[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://www.forbes.com...
[3] http://www.providencejournal.com...
[4] http://www.investopedia.com...
[5] https://www.insidehighered.com...
[6] http://finance.zacks.com...
[7] http://sports.usatoday.com...
[8] http://www.nj.com...
[9] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[10] http://papers.ssrn.com...
[11] http://tinyurl.com...
[12] https://colleges.niche.com...
fire_wings

Con

I thank my opponent for making his arguments in this round. I will first be making my arguments this round, and depending on the character limit, I will post my rebuttals. My opponent has the Burden of Proof.

Preface

If I go to my rebuttals this round, I will rebut each paragraph at a time, and my opponent has 11 paragraphs :( . There isn't much sources to do in this debate, so there will not be much sources.

a. Framework

My framework, and my arguments will be centered around the school’s perspective, and the other student’s. My main arguments will be about cost, unfairness, etc. My framework will be centered around which brings more happiness, because happiness means better things are happening, and that is needed for a debate.

b. What even is a college sport?

Wikipedia says,“"College athletics" is a term encompassing the non-professional, collegiate and university-level competitive sports and games requiring physical skill, and the systems of training that prepare athletes for competition performance.[1]”

Therefore, my arguments will be about what the definition says. I will also say college sports as sports they do in college.

Argument 1: Unfairness/ Bias

My first argument will be about Unfairness. We sign up for sports, which is pretty obvious. If we hear that they pay us, then everyone would want to sign up for it to earn money. However, there is a limited number of players in all sports (except for swimming, and tug a war), so the coaches have to choose. But to win with other schools, who do you think the school’s will pick? Of course they will pick the best athletes. Even if they say they are picking it random, they probably won’t.

This does impact with the resolution because if you earn money when doing sports, and everyone would want to sign up, but then only the best can, because the school wants to win, so only they will get money because they are better, and that is very biased, and unfair. Because this does not give happiness for the other ones who did not get picked, we should not pay college athletes money.

Argument 2: No Effort

My second argument will be about the effort the athletes will make. If we do pay the athletes the money, the athletes will only try to earn money, because that is most important for them; they won’t be competitive enough. When we didn’t pay the athletes, the wanted to win to get medals, but now they have money, and earn money, so they will make less effort of winning, only trying to last in the team to earn money. This does not bring happiness to the teachers, because they want to win, they don’t get distracted by the money because they don’t earn any in this way.

How can this argument give an impact? My framework is centered around happiness, if we ban money, then there will be happiness for the students, because they didn’t even think about getting paid, so they will be competitive to win, and the teacher’s will be happy too. The others won’t feel unfairness. If we have money to give, then it will be happiness for the athletes, unhappiness for the school because they need to pay money, unhappiness from the teachers because they won’t be competitive anymore, unhappiness for the other students because they don’t have the chance to earn money, and they would think it is unfair (and it actually is). Therefore, Vote Con.

Argument 3: Cost

This won’t really be an argument, just questions Pro should answer, then I will rebut them.

1. How much will you pay?

I believe that it will cost to much if we pay them. This will not bring happiness.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...


Conclusion

I can't put my rebuttals this round, I will put them in the next round. I showed many ways why giving money will not bring much happiness. I will explain it again.

Children who are the athletes- They will be happy, because they earn money.
Other children who ain’t the athletes- They will not feel money, because it is unfair, and biased.
The coaches/ teachers-They will not be happy because they want to win, but the athletes are not trying.
The school- The school will not be happy because they have to pay the athletes, when they can make the school itself better.
The parents- half-half. Actually more unhappy if you think about it. The parents of the athletes will be happy, because their child earns money. The others (the majority) will not be happy because their child couldn’t get money because of the bias of the school.

Because I proved that paying athletes does much unhappiness, when if we don’t pay, everyone will become happy, please vote for Con!!!






Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Pro

Many thanks to fire_wings for this debate.

[[ Rebuttal ]]

1. Unfairness/Bias

My opponent claims that because there is a limited number of spots in college sports, coaches have to choose. As such the coaches will choose the best players. This is true and already exists under the status quo. Indeed only the very best athletes are chosen to play college sports at the higher (Division 1) levels; that is why college scouts exist who specifically look to find the best athletes [1]. Therefore this argument is irrelevant -- we already have a system in place that looks to reward the best athletes. Moreover, it is not unfair to reward the better athletes as I've explained in the last round.

2. No Effort

Con says that if we pay athletes, they will only be playing for money and therefore not be competitive. This does not make sense. If people are paid for their performance, it will likely INCREASE their competitive nature (which I explained in the last round) and have them work/compete harder in order to make more money. Paying athletes provides an incentive for more competition, not less. Con claims that student athletes are currently promoted by medals. So are professional athletes. Even the richest athletes look for the glory of winning a championship even if they are personally very rich. Similarly we have every reason to believe that college students would be equally motivated if not probably more motivated to perform better when getting paid.

>> On this point under "Effort," my opponent talks about happiness and claims athletes would be unhappy if they got paid. That is a nonsensical position. First, student athletes have already been very vocal about wanting to get paid [2]. Second, if an athlete doesn't want to get paid (to retain their happiness... or whatever) they can forfeit their salary. Since Con is using the standard of happiness, we should assume that student athletes would be happier making money than not making money.

3. Cost

My opponent asks how college athletes would be paid.

First, let's recognize that it is NOT my burden to explain *how* they should be paid - only that they should.

Nevertheless, there are a lot of ways college athletes can be paid.

One popular proposal is changing antitrust laws to use a salary cap, where college programs would have a salary per sport much like in the pros (but with much smaller figures). There would be both regulated and free market principles at work in this proposal, which winds up saving the schools money. "Is offering cash compensation really that much worse than the current system, in which universities build lavish facilities and spend absurd sums on their “programs” to lure good players? Doesn’t it make more sense to give some of that money to the players? It would actually be less expensive" [3].

Another option is to give athletes the chance to make money off their names and likenesses. As it stands, players' names and likeness are used in video games and to sell jerseys, yet players are not allowed to profit off their own abilities and images. It might not cost the colleges a single penny to do this and yet athletes would have the chance to capitalize on their success.

Here's another way paying athletes could help give money back to colleges: "Yahoo had a great story on Johnny Manziel and the $10 million or so in market value he left on the table at Texas A&M. That’s money that will never be claimed, and had it been available, his former manager says it could have kept him in college another year, which would have meant even more money for Texas A&M, too" [4].

I could go on - but I don't have to. Again, it is not my burden to prove how colleges should pay athletes (because I am not even arguing that colleges should pay athletes; merely that college athletes should be paid - by whomever party is relevant, i.e. ESPN or a video game producer).

So with that said...

[[ Conclusion ]]

I will simply re-cap the arguments I've made, the vast majority of which my opponent has dropped.

1. College athletes work hard.
2. They work longer hours in their sport than the average American does at their job.
3. They often do not have time for additional work and struggle financially.
4. College athletes have to work hard to keep up in school.
5. Other people (schools, coaches, etc.) make tremendous profit off athletes...
6. ...despite the fact that the athletes are the ones putting their lives and bodies on the line.
7. Many college athletes have their career end before it begins; this could be their only chance to profit off their sport.
8. Scholarships are not worth as much as some collegiate athlete's talent.
9. Athletes have different skill sets; it's unfair to give them the same amount of scholarship money.
10. Offering pay would make college sports more competitive.
11. Pro athletes are horrible with money; paying student athletes promotes fiscal responsibility.
12. Not paying athletes promotes lying and backhanded deals.
13. Many schools absolutely have the funds to pay athletes.
14. A salary cap or other system could be put in place to encourage fairness.
15. But either way, we can pay athletes without them being paid by the schools themselves.
16. Success in college sports improves a school's notoriety and brand recognition; it's fair to pay the athletes responsible.
17. It would arguably save the schools money to pay athletes in some cases.
18. It would make the schools money to pay athletes in some cases (see: Manziel example).


Thanks again for this debate, fire_wings.

[1] http://www.nsr-inc.com...
[2] http://america.aljazeera.com...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com...
[4] http://grantland.com...



fire_wings

Con

Observation

1. I won't be providing defense, otherwise it is unfair because I can when my opponent can't
2. I will make my rebuttal's concise, because that is needed in a debate
3. My opponent has the BoP
4. I apoligize, but in college, I looked at it in the French way. Collegé, in french, is middle school. I am deeply sorry for this, but I can't change my case now, and I will keep calling it middle school, because there was no sign that this debate was based on the U.S.

Pro gives a list of her argments


"1. College athletes work hard.
2. They work longer hours in their sport than the average American does at their job.
3. They often do not have time for additional work and struggle financially.
4. College athletes have to work hard to keep up in school."

Just because they work hard, they get money? Why not normal school students? They work hard too.

"5. Other people (schools, coaches, etc.) make tremendous profit off athletes...
6. ...despite the fact that the athletes are the ones putting their lives and bodies on the line."


At least they get prizes, and the coaches are the ones teaching, without them they can't learn.

7. Many college athletes have their career end before it begins; this could be their only chance to profit off their sport.

They can be professionals if they work hard, and really want to, college is for fun. They are still young, 6 grade to 8 grade

8. Scholarships are not worth as much as some collegiate athlete's talent.

I said the teacher's teach them

9. Athletes have different skill sets; it's unfair to give them the same amount of scholarship money.

Why not? Some people have math skills, but they get the same amount. It matters of if they get a scholarship or not.

10. Offering pay would make college sports more competitive.

This can go into fighting if they give a goal, and hurt themselves.

11. Pro athletes are horrible with money; paying student athletes promotes fiscal responsibility.

No reason why they should get payed. They have responsibilty in doing other things, there should not be more.

12. Not paying athletes promotes lying and backhanded deals.

What? No. That is sh!t. That is nonsense. Bare assertion

13. Many schools absolutely have the funds to pay athletes.

But some don't.

14. A salary cap or other system could be put in place to encourage fairness.

In my arguments, I told it was unfair.

15. But either way, we can pay athletes without them being paid by the schools themselves.

How then? The teacher's don't get much money.

16. Success in college sports improves a school's notoriety and brand recognition; it's fair to pay the athletes responsible.

Yes, this is true. But it gives no reason to pay middle schoolers

17. It would arguably save the schools money to pay athletes in some cases.

They pay money. How can this save money?

18. It would make the schools money to pay athletes in some cases (see: Manziel example).

How can the school earn money when giving money.

Clarificatiion: In how much? I asked how much will be give them. We can't give them too much. For these reasons, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fire_wings 5 months ago
fire_wings
Ha ha, very funny tejretics. And, Danielle's debate was the bad one.
Posted by tejretics 5 months ago
tejretics
Wow - you debated #2 and #3 of the leaderboard at once.
Posted by fire_wings 5 months ago
fire_wings
I really didn't care about this debate, I made my rebuttals in 5 minutes, I was to tired in bsh's debate, and I learned a lesson that you should never debate 7000-8000 ELO people at once.
Posted by tejretics 5 months ago
tejretics
Pro's main argument is that the effort college athletes put into sports often takes away time from academic pursuits and makes it harder for them to get a job, etc., which means colleges ought to pay these athletes for sacrificing that for the college's good. This point largely goes unrefuted, with Con talking about "other students working hard as well," which misses the point of the argument, that college athletes take double the effort vs. other students. None of Con's arguments are nearly as persuasive, partially because Pro is stylistically far ahead, and her arguments are immediately appealing/persuasive, while Con's points often verge on the incoherent. The point on unfairness doesn't make sense because it isn't inherently advantageous to be a college athlete, and Pro's own offense defeats this simply because the payment merely cancels out the disadvantages of being an athlete to the students. The argument from "non-competitiveness" isn't compelling at all either, because Con fails to provide a clear link to non-competitiveness from payment (since payment is an incentive to not be "fired" and to become better - which ultimately benefits colleges too). The issue of cost is mostly tangential because it doesn't have a clear impact: colleges easily have the resources to pay, are benefited by college athletes, and payment will actually encourage greater quality (see the non-competitiveness turn). For those reasons, it's an objective win for Pro.
Posted by TUF 5 months ago
TUF
"They can be professionals if they work hard, and really want to, college is for fun. They are still young, 6 grade to 8 grade."

This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. I appologize firewings, but do you even know what you are debating?
Posted by fire_wings 5 months ago
fire_wings
And lannan, you didn't explain Pro's rebuttals clearly, and you didn't give any impact. If you have time, can you make them more concise?
Posted by fire_wings 5 months ago
fire_wings
lannan, I thank your vote, but you didn't go on my rebuttals, only saying it is one line. So? I still have refuted Pro's argument by saying that even if we do this, there is no reason to do that.
Posted by lannan13 5 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 3: Conclusion

With Pro winning all the arguments provided in this debate, she wins the arguments points.
Posted by lannan13 5 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 2: Con's arguments

Bias/Unfairness

Con brings up this argument in R2 and starts off by saying that if we announce scholarships for playing sports, many will apply to join the team. This would create a bias based off of skill as the coach will only pick the best players. Though isn't that the point of the sports when the goal is winning? Con links it as saying this will decrease happiness as only the best will be picked since the school wants to win. Pro points this out in R3 when she talks about how this occurs in the status quo and eventually flows down through all divisions in college athletics.

This argument to Pro

C2: No Effort

Con argues that if we give athletes more money that it would only make the players not care about winning. The only thing they would care about is getting more money, so they would only perform the bare minimum. He then states that the lack of effort leads to massive unhappiness around the school as the teachers want to win, but the students don't want to work hard enough to do so. Pro argues that it will lead to the opposite effect since they would want to work harder to not only keep their job, but to win. This would actually turn this argument to Pro's side.

Pro wins this argument

C3 Costs

Con purposes the question to ask Pro, how much will this cost in R2. Pro brings up many things such as allowing players to make money off of their likeness or how the schools could put a salary cap on the amount they can pay student-athletes. Note that it's not Pro's job to explain how, but only that they should under the resolution and the BOP.

This argument goes to Pro.
Posted by lannan13 5 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 1: Pro's arguments

For this vote, I shall be dividing it into Pro's arguments and then move on to each of Con's contentions.

Pro brings up how the sports players spend 43.3 hours per week working on their sport. Added in with Travel time, these students-athletes are unable to get a steady paying job. Pro then argues that we are paid based on our value and in sports people should be paid based on how much they help their team. Pro provides a source talking about how college-athletes are bad with money and giving them this money will somehow teach them fiscal responsibility. There isn't really a connection drawn here as to how this is. Wouldn't people just continue their same habits? Pro brings up how allowing this will promote honesty since there are 96 schools have been caught and many others can easily have been doing this. Pro argues that NCAA makes $11 billion and without sharing it with others makes it unfair, which isn't really explained. Con responds to Pro's arguments 1-4 (summerized by Pro in R3) by stating that others learn, but doesn't actually explain why there's equality here, nor is there cost-benefit analysis. These arguments to Pro. Con argues that it's the teachers who teach the students in a rebuttal to Pro's statement on how scholarships should be based on skill. Which that may be the case, but it doesn't address the issue at hand. Unfortunately many of Con's rebuttles are short, unexplained, one-liners that really don't actually fully address the statements and arguments made by Pro.

Pro wins this argument.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 5 months ago
tejretics
Daniellefire_wingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by TUF 5 months ago
TUF
Daniellefire_wingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X31MRVpLuTZFIoOx92cQwcUVPbEyGwh5wUinBtT3U3o/edit?usp=sharing I'd give Pro conduct as well, because prima facie it appears Con trolled her; But as per VU guidelines I cannot award that point. Plus I think Firewings seriously mis-understood Pro's arguments and didn't purposely mis-read the resolution.
Vote Placed by lannan13 5 months ago
lannan13
Daniellefire_wingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in the Comments section. This vote has been brought to you in part by, the DDO Voter's Union.