The Instigator
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
eb101010
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

College athletes should be allowed to make money related to playing

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 2 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,105 times Debate No: 41481
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Ore_Ele

Pro

This debate comes from the following Opinion.

http://www.debate.org...

The terms "make money" and "paid" refer to monetary or any highly liquidable asset (meaning something that can be turned into cash pretty easily and quickly) for compensation, beyond just scholarships that cover the cost of the schooling and housing. I will be arguing for a structured compensation with limits and regulations, but it will allow players to be paid and collect cash. My opponent will be arguing that players not be paid in anything highly liquidable. He does not have to argue that they need to abolish scholarships or anything of the sort.

The intent of this debate should be clear. Any attempt to use semantics to corrupt or argue something outside the spirit of the debate shall not count towards arguments and count against conduct.

My opponent may start their arguments their R1, or accept and pass for me to start R2.

Thank you,
eb101010

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Ore_Ele

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this challenge and welcome him to the debate side of DDO. I highly encourage him to take a look at some debates that older members have had (such as myself, Roylatham, or Danielle) as well as how the voters vote and reach their conclusions. This should help him understand the basic format. With three days per round, I do hope that he gets this opportunity.

Now, to dive into the debate.

Let me start by arguing why it is wrong to continue with the current path of students not being allowed to be compensated for their work. I will follow that with an outlined plan of a better option that will allow them to be compensated, generate revenue for the schools, and have limitations to help prevent the money and success from going to kids' heads and corrupting them.


=== Issues with current system ===

The current system states that students cannot be paid at all for work, nor their image as a result of their work. This means that their coaches nor school cannot pay them at all with any assets, even with food [1]. This also means that they are not allowed to sell their own autographs, while others are allowed to do so all the time (there are entire stores that do nothing but sell autographs of players [2], this store alone has over 27,000 college items). Technically, the rules state that no player can give their autographs to anyone that they know will profit off of it, but the NCAA only enforces this against family and friends [3]. It cares not if you spend 4 hours signing stuff for a single individual that will hawk them on ebay, so long as you make no money.

Players can be awarded scholarships from schools to pay for their schooling and board, but this does not cover food or other general living expenses. As Arian Foster said, reflecting back on his years in Tennessee [1]...

"There were plenty of times where throughout the month I didn't have enough for food," Foster said in the 90-minute documentary. "Our stadium had like 107,000 seats; 107,000 people buying a ticket to come watch us play. It's tough just like knowing that, being aware of that. We had just won and I had a good game, 100 yards or whatever You go outside and there's hundreds of kids waiting for you. You're signing autographs, taking pictures, whatever. Then I walk back, and reality sets in. I go to my dorm room, open my fridge, and there's nothing in my fridge. Hold up, man. What just happened? Why don't I have anything to show for what I just did? There was a point where we had no food, no money, so I called my coach and I said, 'Coach, we don't have no food. We don't have no money. We're hungry. Either you give us some food, or I'm gonna go do something stupid.' He came down and he brought like 50 tacos for like four or five of us. Which is an NCAA violation."

With the time it takes for schooling and practice, getting a job to add on to all of that is not a practical solution (until we discover a way to never need to sleep). But, whatever way you look at it, such a system is not just. From a rights/free-market/capitalist point of view, an adult (of which the vast majority of players are 18 or older and so adults) should be able to negotiate any pay for their labor. From a liberal/labor/socialist point of view, no one should be getting rich of the labor of someone else.

=== A better alternative ===

One very large market is the selling of autographs, imagines, and likeness of a player. At the moment players cannot be compensated for this at all, while others are allowed to make bank off them. Players would be allowed to sell their autographs to anyone at any price. The restrictions would be that whatever they sell, half goes to them, half goes to the school's athletic program up until the player makes $50,000 a year ( with the fiscal year based on school year, rather than calendar year). If they continue to sell above that, half still goes to the school, and the players half will instead go into a trust fund that the student gets once they graduate. The $50,000 a year is an arbitrary number that is free to adjust based on the economy and inflation.

One concern with players getting paid is that many fear that the fame already has a very corrupting influence and adding money in with that is only going to make it worse (as we see with so many child movie, TV, and music stars). However, putting a humble limit on the amount that they can put in their pocket right away will allow them to feed themselves and have a decent life style without being so much that have any real corrupting influence. It also allows money to be put away for future use. which is something that athletes (and everyone in general) has a hard time doing [4].

I will end with this and let my opponent present his argument.

Thank you,

[1] http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com...
[2] http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com...
[3] http://sports.yahoo.com...
[4] http://www.munknee.com...
eb101010

Con

eb101010 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
eb101010

Con

Thank you for challenging me to this debate and letting me extend my turn. My apologies for forfeiting the previous round; I have been extremely busy. Let me start by arguing your points, which will be followed by how payment will give advantages and disadvantages to different colleges depending on the wealth of the college. Then I will argue with a counter to your alternative, so I"ll get started.

========Problems that would occur upon the changing of the system====

I understand the challenges that some college athletes face from lack of pay, but there are reasons for not being able to sell their own merchandise. Imagine how players could go out of control by selling autographs, jerseys, etc. to make a living. That would make every other business in that trade fold completely until there"s a complete control of the market from the players themselves. I believe that that is a necessary evil to protect other businesses.

Next: If how much money you get paid had an impact on which school you went to, imagine how that could completely undermine the choice of school from other factors. The wealthier schools would be able to essentially bribe a player into going to their school. That gives a tremendous disadvantage to less wealthy schools. If athletes were to get paid, schools working to build upon their athletics program wouldn"t stand a chance. I believe that it would completely creates a class system of college athletics program.

===========My Solution:===========
Athletes can be allowed to receive money to help them get by financially in college. It would not be illegal for coaches, family members, teammates, friends, etc. to give or lend money or give gifts (i.e. food). If we allow players to sell their own merchandise, we would be making people in that business commit suicide. That is why my solution is a better option then the one previously stated before.

Since I am completely on a time crunch, I will state my sources in my next argument (I"m really sorry I keep having to delay like this).
Debate Round No. 3
Ore_Ele

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for their round. I will begin by addressing concerns brought up by my opponent, then re-affirming my position.

=== Con's Case ===

1) Protecting other businesses

Con makes the case that we ought to protect the businesses that are currently selling autograph merchandise. To this, I say "why?" Those "businesses" did not produce the product, nor create the value behind the product. Absolutely all of the value of that merchandise is created by the athletes themselves. Since they created that value, they are the rightful holders of the value and ought to have the right to sell. The businesses do not create value and are, in effect, stealing that value from the students.

Now, that just goes over the ethical reason for protecting those businesses. Let us now look to the practical side of the equation. Will students really corner the market? No, just like with pro NFL stars, they do not do the signings and sell the merchandise directly to the final consumer themselves. They do not have the business infrastructure, knowledge, nor time to do all that (it would require a sales team to process orders, a shipping and packaging team, accounting, and all aspects of business). They sell bulk merchandise to distributers for a flat rate or commision and the distributers then sell to the customers (they might add another line of middlemen). This is how most other businesses all around the world work. You rarely purchase anything directly from the manufaturer. It comes from a privately owned distributer or retailer. There is no reason to believe that college athletes would not do the same thing. After all, if they dedicate too much time to trying to micro manage those sales, they have less time to prepare for games and their performance will suffer.


2) Pretecting poorer schools

Con suggested that poorer schools would not be able to afford to pay students. This is, of course, not an issue, since my suggested system has nothing to do with schools paying students. However, even if that was allowed, with the $60,000 a year cap, most moderate sized schools could afford to pay their entire starting line up that rate (remember, there are some coaches making over $5 million a year [1]).

What we would see would actually be the opposite. This would be better for the smaller schools as skilled players could go to smaller schools where they could be a starter all four years (rather than just their last 1 or 2) and do really well (by not playing as tough of opponents). While they may not get the national attention, they will still get a significant local fan base that can support their merchandise. This will drive more skilled players to those smaller school so that they can get more local attention and thus balance out the schools more.


=== Pro's Case ===

My case still stands that the limitations on income will prevent the wealth and ego from going to their heads. My opponent also admits with their argument that it some form of payment is better then maintaining the status quo. So the status quo should be changed (that alone affirms the resolution) and nothing really challenges my case.

Thank you,

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com...;
eb101010

Con

========Pro"s Case========

1) Pro makes the case that because the businesses did not create the value in the autographed merchandise, they do not have any right to own it. If that"s the case, then regular stores like Target have no business selling any of their products that were produced in factory lines in other countries because they did not make them, so it is unjustified for them to be selling them. Does that make any sense? No. Pro also brought up the following argument: "Let us now look to the practical side of the equation. Will students really corner the market? No, just like with pro NFL stars, they do not do the signings and sell the merchandise."
2)It is not practical for you to speak for college athletes that need money. That is a completely invalid argument because you are merely assuming that by moral rights and wrongs college athletes will not try to make a business off of their merchandise. Surely there will be some who avoid that, but there will also be some who don"t. You also said that pro NFL stars do not do the signings and sell the merchandise. Well, pro NFL players have salaries because that is their job. They do not have scholarships that were paid for them to get an education. "It costs $57,180 to go to Duke. It's $31,946 to attend Butler. The University of Cincinnati, a public, urban place with lots of commuters, costs $24,942 if you're from out of state, which describes the bulk of football and basketball players. If you want to go to the University of Texas, and you're not a Texan, it's $35,776 a year. Many people who work full-time jobs don't make $35,776 a year. Some even have college degrees." [1] It would be a lot more to ask of the college to have them pay $60,000 and pass up the scholarship. If collegiate athletes get a freebee on the scholarship AND a $60,000 cap, they open up a store. I know many people who have done so for less.
3) Pro also brings up the point that "would be better for the smaller schools as skilled players could go to smaller schools where they could be a starter all four years (rather than just their last 1 or 2) and do really well (by not playing as tough of opponents)." If anybody who knows anything about sports hears that (which I do, being on a regional champions soccer team when I was a teenager), they will flat out disagree. Which I do. No sports player gets better AT ALL from playing weaker opponents. Opponents who challenge them will make them better and better. Athletes will choose higher ranked colleges because playing better people will make them play better. You also said they"d get more of a localized fan base. That"s great, but when you"re localized, you eventually run out of people to sell to. And, they won"t get much national attention from smaller schools, which you also brought up. You"re proposed idea about smaller schools will never work.

4) You also mentioned that a moderate-sized college could afford to pay their entire starting line up at a 60K cap. Is that football? Or soccer? Or basketball? Or baseball, or tennis, or any of the littler sports played in college? Because, let"s get real, football, soccer, basketball, and baseball are the real crowd-drawing sports in college. If you allow some collegiate athletes to get paid but not others, how would that work? The answer: It wouldn"t.

=======Conclusion===========
My case stands that you cannot stand as a representative of collegiate athletes when you aren"t one. You"re stance on giving the advantage to bigger schools is absurdly wrong, you are willing to put thousands of people out of business for a handful when there is a much better solution, and paying every single athlete is completely unreasonable. Thank you for challenging me to this debate. I hope that voters see the truth and logic in my argument and side with the opposition.

"That would defeat the whole amateurism aspect of college football for players to be paid. For me personally, do I think it would be cool? I think it would be awesome, but at the same time if it wasn't kept equal for everybody, it could lead to a lot of problems and lessen the experience of being a college athlete." [2]
-Matthias Farley, Notre Dame safety

"I don't think we should get paid. The problem with that is there's only a few teams that make money, so how are you really going to pay everyone." [3]
-Barrett Jones, Alabama center

"When you think about the thousands of dollars we get in free education, it's hard to say." [4]
-Harrison Jones, Alabama tight end

"Honestly, we get so much at Notre Dame just getting a scholarship, so asking for more is getting greedy." [5]
-Justin Utupo, Notre Dame defensive End

[1]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com...
[2] http://www.usatoday.com...
[3] http://www.usatoday.com...
[4] http://www.usatoday.com...
[5] http://www.usatoday.com...
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TUF 2 years ago
TUF
RFD:

I think Ore won the arguments for this debate. Each point was clear and concise, and his plan to back it up ultimately benefited his side in a way that was hard pressed to negate. Eb"s case was full of contradictions, and the impact behind his case was non-existent. Ore properly managed to point out the consistency flaws, while providing a logical basis for setting a proper plan. The moral argument was there as well, but it was not asserted as a more argument alone, as explained by Eb. But it did tie along nicely with the case set forth by Ore, which in the end worked against Eb. After reading this debate, I must affirm the resolution.

Conduct goes to Ore for the forfeited round. While Ore"s sources were more relevant and impactful, I will neglect from counting this point against Eb, because the sources provided did at least show that he had put in time and effort researching his information.

There were only minor S/G mistakes on both sides, nothing to fuss over, so this point will also be left null

Interesting debate, thanks guys. I read it all the way through and felt like I learned something so thankyou both for an interesting experience.
Posted by TUF 2 years ago
TUF
R5

Ore addresses the very important part about why business need to be protected, and why they should be valued over the athlete. He puts it very precisely, and demonstrates the lack of a connection with this point.

Ore also points out the obvious important statement that the way eb envisions the athlete"s sales team is probably very inaccurate. It is improbable to assume that athelete"s are able to actually make such an impact on these businesses by themselves, also considering the time they have to spend preparing for games.

Ore then properly debunked the likelihood of smaller schools being put at a dis-advantage through proper sources, though even still the impact behind this point was lost to me as a reader.

In round 5. Eb repeats the same argument in the first point, but again, doesn"t refute the impact, which is why Ore easily wins this point. Making a claim that doesn"t have a valid reason to be taken seriously in the first place, defeats the purpose of making the point at all.

The second point was entirely a waste of energy.

"That is a completely invalid argument because you are merely assuming that by moral rights and wrongs college athletes will not try to make a business off of their merchandise."

Ore"s alternative set forth a plan that required athletes only to make enough to survive on, with a minimum profit set at 50,000$. The effect they can have on business under this plan, is limited already (ignoring the fact that business could actually be really harmed in the first place).
Posted by TUF 2 years ago
TUF
R2

Ore starts out with a great initial argument about players non-profiting from their games. I liked how it was not presented as an emotional appeal, but as a logical appeal in stating that money can be made off of a player, however the play himself is not rewarded. The quote from Arian Foster helped impound the reality of the nonsense behind the rule, as was well utilized in this debate. The alternative set forth is a mature outlook on allowing the player the basic necessities, without over-compensating them.

R4

Eb responds with an argument outlying the effect players can have on other business, which makes the players suffering necessary. I did have a hard time understand the impact of this point, however. Why is the harm to a business more important than the harm to a player? Also how does the harm to the business exceed the harm to the player? There are plenty of questions in her point that weren"t really verified. The argument needed a lot more stability before it can be given any credibility.

Also the solution was contradicting to his point. The claim that family can provide support for their athlete, isn"t really an alternative, because as far as I am aware, they already can. However, this still ignored the fact that an athlete may be limited in a scenario where they don"t have such resources. If the athlete doesn"t immediately have family or friends available, would they have to wait to eat until they could make it happen? The Arian Foster Quote itself shows that the resources aren"t always available. The coach had to break a conduct violation just to support his team, because the athlete didn"t have such resources available. But even revising the rule to allow coaches to pay for their athlete is a fallible rule because it requires the hopeful good intentions of the coach. The impact is gone, but the problem acknowledged, this really hurt eb.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 2 years ago
TUF
Ore_Eleeb101010Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Ore_Eleeb101010Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case was cleanly extended in R2. Con fails to rebut it in R3. Instead makes a ton of new args in the final round. That is unfair b/c Pro has no chance to respond to them. Hence, for untouched offense and fairness, Pro wins.