The Instigator
michaelperry13
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
msheahan99
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

College athletes should not be paid.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
michaelperry13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,194 times Debate No: 43730
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

michaelperry13

Pro

First round is for acceptance. I will argue on the side that college athletes should not be paid, and my opponent will argue on the side that they should. Good luck.
msheahan99

Con

I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
michaelperry13

Pro

College athletes should not be paid for many reasons.

A. We would be putting too much of a value on sports rather than academics.
Why should we pay athletes for paying sports that don't help better the society? We have students that are researching the big problems in the world, and getting degrees that could help them alter the course of human history. What kind of message would it send to children in high school and below if we pay college athletes? Many kids would reason that because you could get paid to do a sport in college, that it is more important than learning things that could better our society. The athletes are there to get an education, and educated people are what is making the world a better place.

B. Many other students bring money into the school. Would we pay them too?
One of my teachers once talked about the fact that she brought in around $2,000 a semester by writing for the school newspaper. Would we also pay every single person that brought money into the school? How is it fair if the athletes get some of the money that they bring in, but all the academics out there wouldn't?

C. What about other sports?
a. How is it fair that one sports' athletes, (most likely mens' basketball and football,) get more money than all of the other sports? Sports are all equal.
b. What would be done about the fact that female athletes would inevitably receive less money? Does title IX apply? (1)

D. What about high school sports?
Where would this all end? If a high school football player brings money in to his school, is he then ALSO entitled to a cut of the money?

E. They are already being paid in scholarship money.
The average college athlete starts of their life after college with an average of $27,000 less student loan debt. (2) Because that's (more than, because of interest) $27,000 that they wont have to pay that non-college athletes will have to pay.

F. Most colleges do not have the money to pay for their athletes.
Currently, 90% of athletic departments lose money.
Lose. Money.
That means they can't even cover their own costs with their revenue.
This is a problem because if they can't pay for their own programs, how can they be expected to pay their athletes?

(1) http://www.titleix.info...
(2) http://kystokes.wordpress.com...
msheahan99

Con

I'd like to thank my opponents for a good case.

My opponent claims "we would be putting too much of a value on sports rather than academics". I respond by stating that these athletics prevent a specific student from getting a job. An athlete will be unable to get a job at a local company like the average student because of time conflicts, thus this extra "value" is actually necessary in order for these students to make ends meet.

I don't really understand what my opponent is trying to say in point B where he talks about "bringing in money" I request that he clarify this in the next round.

My opponent questions the fairness of one sport receiving more money than other sports. He then claims that "all sports are equal." I respond with some statistics on the average yearly salary of professional sports players.
NBA: $5.2 Million
MLB: $2.5 Million
NFL: $1.75 Million
NHL: $1.3 Million
source: http://www.statisticbrain.com...
The claim that "all sports are equal" is not true because certain sports draw more audience then other sports, because less people would want to watch hockey then basketball. Thus not all sports are equal and we cannot treat them as such.

My opponent claims that high school sports would have to be "entitled to a cut of the money" however I go back to my point about how due to time conflicts athletes wouldn't be able to make money. In the NCAA most regular students are able to get jobs, and thus the athletes are at a disadvantage and need the extra pay. The athletes are not at this disadvantage in high school because high school students don't all have jobs, thus the athletes aren't at a disadvantage in highschool in terms of funds.

My opponent claims that they are already being paid in scholarship money, and claims the scholarship money is 27000$ however I question the validity of these statistics. The statistics never actually state the $27000 scholarship number. They state "$27,000 less in college loan debt than the average student" yet they say nothing about $27000 in scholarship money. The writer of this article also says nothing about where he got these statistics, and doesn't state any study or sources to these statistics. Unless my opponent can come up with different sources to state this information then we cannot trust these statistics. I instead site a few different statistics from Mark Kantrowitz of Finaid.org "approximately 1% to 2% of undergraduate students in Bachelor"s degree programs receive athletic scholarships." Thus the claim that "they are already being paid in scholarship money" is not true.
Source: http://www.fastweb.com...

My opponent claims that most colleges do not have the money to pay for their athletes, however he sites no sources and presents no evidence of these statistics. Thus we can not see this argument as an actual point in favor of pro's side.

Now that I have refuted my opponents case I will present my own.

One of the main sources of revenue for colleges is athletics, and athletics would be nothing without the players. These players do everything for the college, they play the game and do everything for the athletic program. They deserve compensation for what they do. The college sports industry makes upwards of 11 billion dollars in total revenue from television sponsors, ticket sales and broadcasting rights. The athletes are what make up this revenue. Without them the revenue wouldn't exist, they deserve compensation for what they do.
Source: http://24allnews.com...

Marc Edelman of usnews.com states that the lack of pay to student athletes is actually illegal. He states quote "Not only are the NCAA rules that prevent colleges from paying student-athletes immoral, but they also are likely illegal. Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, in pertinent part, states that "every contract, combination " or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce " is declared to be illegal." Applying this language, any agreement among NCAA members to prohibit the pay of student-athletes represents a form of wage fixing that likely violates antitrust law. In addition, the NCAA's no-pay rules seem to constitute an illegal boycott of any college that would otherwise seek to pay its student-athletes." Because of this the lack of pay to the student athletes is illegal and should be abolished.
Source: http://www.usnews.com...

Because I have refuted all of my opponents arguments, because students deserve to be compensated and because the lack of pay on student athletes is illegal I strongly urge a vote for con.
Debate Round No. 2
michaelperry13

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for his timely response.

First I will defend my cases, and then I will refute my opponent's cases.

My opponent failed to address the fact that there are students out there making a difference in the world that aren't getting paid, possibly because of lack of clarity in my first paragraph, so I will use this time to remind him of this fact.

When I said that we would be putting too much of a value on sports rather than academics, it was meant to be taken many ways. First off, it means that we are putting too much value moral-wise on sports. Some kids would see college football and basketball players making money, playing the sports that they loved, and they would decide that they wanted to go to college to get paid to play sports. This would diminish the reason that students go to college... to learn. What about the kids that are getting degrees in neuroscience? Kids that will go on to research cures for cancer? THEY are the ones making a difference in the world. Sports are just for fun. Why should athletes be paid, but not the people that are making strides in science and other subjects?

And, because you said that being an athlete is a full time job, I'd like to point out that so is being a student in many cases. My brother goes to The University of Pittsburgh, and he has an extremely rigorous schedule, and lots of student loans. His days are packed with classes, and 4 hour chemistry labs that can last from 6 to 10 at night. He, and many of his friends, could never get a part time job to make money on the side. I believe that paying athletes who spend all their time playing sports on basis of the fact that they can't get jobs isn't fair, because their academic counterparts have the same issue and wouldn't be receiving pay.

Additionally, it's putting more value on sports money-wise. I will now also be clarifying what I meant with point B.
One of the reasons that con contends that student athletes should be paid is that they bring in revenue to the school. When I said that one of my teachers "brought in money," I was saying that as a result of her writing in the school newspaper, the school made revenue. I'm saying, that because a wide variety of people help the schools create revenue, would we pay every single one? It would be a difficult endeavor to track down every single person that made money for the school, but I believe it would be necessary in order to be fair to everyone.

Another point in relation to athletes not being able to hold down a part time job is this. My opponent says that because a certain sport doesn't draw as much of an audience, that they shouldn't be paid as much. I say that this is extremely unfair.
One of the main points my opponent uses in this debate is that athletes need the money because they will not be able to have a job because of how much time they spend in their sports. I contend that many athletes in OTHER sports that may not necessarily draw as big of an audience ALSO cannot have a part time job. Swimmers are allowed by the NCAA to practice in the pool for 20 hours each week. (1) This may not sound like that much, but I'd like to provide insight on what they actually do.

Swimmers interval train, as you might know. They might do a 100 yard swim on 1:40. Because the swimming mentality is basically "work as much as you can," swimmers will do those hundred yards in times of about one minute or so. Now, even though they have been in the water for 1:40, they treat it as only having swam for 1 minute of their allotted time. This allows them to spend ridiculous amounts of time in the pool each week.
And that is not even counting the time in the weight room and gym that they might have to do OUTSIDE of practicing.

I contend that because swimmers are spending just as much time as other athletes playing their sport, and can also not get a part-time job, they would also have to be paid for their work.

My opponent's views are not exactly the same throughout his argument. First, he says that because the athletes make revenue for the school, that they should be paid. Now, he once again states that because they cannot hold part time jobs, that they should be paid.

But like I said earlier, if an athlete is making money for the school, wouldn't they also be entitled to some of the money? Regardless of whether a high school athlete has a job or not, or would want one, if they make money for the school, it is the same situation as college.

I'd like to apologize for the fact that I didn't cite my source for the "90% of athletic departments lose money" fact. Most colleges do not have the money to pay their athletes because their programs do not make money. (2) Once again, I apologize for not citing this article. As you can see, the writer got his information from a "USA today story," which can be found at this link. (3)

However, although I didn't cite it immediately, the information is still true.

I use this next paragraph to make a statement pertaining to my opponent's paragraph where he called my $27,000 statistic into question. Although I was unable to find the original statistic in a study, I contend that it doesn't matter what the average college athlete receives. Because 90% of athletic departments lose money, it doesn't matter what Jane from Utah is getting in field hockey scholarship, because her athletic department is losing money and she wouldn't be paid anyway. All that matters is the sports that make money, mainly football, and basketball.

According to the NCAA, "the average scholarship [for division I basketball] at an in-state public school is worth $15,000/year. At an out-of-state public school, it"s worth $25,000/year. And at a private school, it"s worth $35,000/year or more." (4)
This statistic is even higher than the former, and I believe this would already constitute being paid for playing your sport.

Additionally, I do not see any relevance of the statistic cited at the end of the paragraph. Why does it matter what percent of all people (athletes and non-athletes) receive athletic scholarships? We are talking solely about athletes in this debate, and that statistic doesn't reflect that parameter.

I have now finished defending my arguments, so I will now refute my opponent's.

I'd like to once again point out that the argument that players do everything for the college is flawed. Other athletes donate lots of time and wouldn't get paid in your scenario, and the people that do make revenue for the college (men's and women's basketball, football) already do get paid in athletic scholarships.

I also don't see how it would be illegal to not pay student athletes. For one, it is legal because it is currently being done. I contend that because it is an extracurricular that the students are choosing to do, that they do not need to be paid for it. It is not wage fixing because it is not a job.

I would also like my opponent to clarify how an illegal boycott is being created. It is not boycotting, it is simply a rule, and a good one that should be kept.

I am now done refuting my opponents arguments, and have finished defending mine. I believe that all students that are making money for their school are on scholarship, and it would be unfair to pay students based on the audience they draw, because other athletes work just as hard. Additionally, they cannot be paid on the basis that they don't have time for a job, because athletes that DON'T draw an audience don't make as much money for the school, but also cannot get a job. Therefore, I urge a vote for pro.

I'd like to thank con for clearly being a worthy opponent.

(1) http://www.gocrimson.com...
(2) http://www.forbes.com...
(3) http://www.usatoday.com...
(4) http://www.nerdwallet.com...
msheahan99

Con

My opponent claims that sports are not as important as academics, I respond to this by stating that sports programs at college are a way for the college to advertise for it's education. You may notice when watching a basketball game or a football game there will be many ads for the school itself. The reason schools wish to improve there athletics department is for greater revenue. Schools use this as a way to get the word out for there school. In this way the athletes should get the credit for the amount of money the school earns because of this. In this way the "students that are making a difference" are benefiting from this extra pay.

My opponent responds to my point about full time jobs by stating that being a student is also a full time job with few breaks. I state that this proves my point! Athletes are students too! Athletes have to participate in student activities, and using my opponents logic it is clear athletes have the tougher time, when you have to deal with both the difficult time consumer that is academics AS WELL AS ATHLETICS it becomes nearly impossible to get a job during this time. Thus the added pay would be beneficial to the athletes and should be added.

My opponent claims that if any people bring money into the school they should be paid as well, however athletes make up the vast majority of the money made from students. As my statistics showed athletics have made 12 billion dollars. Thus a newspaper job is not as beneficial to the school as athletics.

In my opponents point about swimmers he states that they should deserve to be paid as much as the regular athlete. However this cannot be true, as not all sports can be equal. Remember that in the professional leagues the better players are paid more, this is simply part of life. I understand that the swimmers need pay, and I agree they do, but it doesn't matter because it doesn't draw enough attention to the school and thus they are not aiding the school as much as a football player. They do deserve money in replacement for a job, but not as much as the major athletes.

My opponent states the following: "But like I said earlier, if an athlete is making money for the school, wouldn't they also be entitled to some of the money? Regardless of whether a high school athlete has a job or not, or would want one, if they make money for the school, it is the same situation as college." However he fails to remember my other argument, that they cannot maintain jobs. High school athletes can't maintain jobs either way so it doesn't put them at a disadvantage.

My opponent claims that 90% of athletic departments lose money, however they lose money strictly within the athletic program, these statistics fail to take into account the advertising the athletic departments bring in. If athletic departments where losing schools money the school could shut it down at any moment, however they don't because they know that it helps them.

My opponent responds to my point about "I also don't see how it would be illegal to not pay student athletes. For one, it is legal because it is currently being done." However if a serial killer where to kill someone and not be caught would that change the fact that it is not illegal? Absolutely not! Just because something is happening that is illegal doesn't mean that it should continue happening! It means that it should be abolished, it is illegal and it is wrong.

Because of all of the reasons that I have presented I strongly urge a vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
michaelperry13

Pro

First, I will defend my statements, and then I will refute my opponent's cases.

My opponent says that just because sports are a way to advertise for a school, that they are just as important as academics. I would like to remind him of something he still hasn't responded to. Sports ultimately don't matter. At the end of the day, all that matters is what contributions the college makes to the world. Additionally, my opponent's argument against paying the "students that are making a difference" is that they are otherwise benefiting because of the money the sports programs bring in, but that is not a fair statement. For starters, I have already showed con that 90% of athletic programs lose money, which I will certainly come back to later in the my statement. Also, con has no evidence that other students are "benefiting from this pay" the way that they should be.

My opponent maintains that athletes have the tougher time because they have to juggle academics and sports and that they cannot get a full time job, so they should get paid. I remind con that OTHER sports, whose athletes WOULDN'T get paid, also have to do this! And added to that, students that are on scholarship have tutors and other resources available to them for free that other non-athlete students, and athletes that are not a part of football or basketball, would not have. I contend that the argument that says "athletes should get paid because they don't have time to have a job" has been completely disproven at this point for a few reasons.

-If you are going to give SOME athletes compensation for the fact that they can't get a job, you have to give it to ALL of the hard working athletes with long hours, ie swimmers, volleyball players, etc. My opponent needs to respond in respect to the fact that other sports require grueling hours, and that they would not be compensated AT ALL in many cases. I understand that you think that they would get less money, but often they would get absolutely none.

-Athletes that would get paid (football, basketball players) are provided with tutors and stuff of the sort for free if they are on scholarship, and if they need it. Swimmers, because they are likely not given as much scholarship money, do not have that luxury, and as STUDENT ATHLETES THAT JUGGLE BOTH SCHOOL WORK AND THEIR SPORT, they wouldn't be getting compensated. Also, non-athletes would not be provided with the free tutoring that "major" athletes are given.

-Scholarships. I will give specifics on this later.

-My opponent doesn't address the fact that, with con's logic, because they are unable to get jobs, students should ALSO be compensated.

-The fact that because high school students are also forfeiting the opportunity to get a job, under con's logic, they would additionally need to be compensated. I will come back to this later in my argument.

Because of all these reasons, the argument that the athletes in big sports (football, basketball) should be paid on basis of the fact that they cannot get a job does not hold any weight. There are plenty of others in the same situation that wouldn't be getting compensated for their lack of a job, so this argument does not make sense.

My opponent also concedes the fact that it doesn't matter what percentage of students are getting athletic scholarships, because we are only talking about athletes.

My opponent says that just because writing for the school newspaper doesn't make as much money, that students shouldn't be paid for it in his scenario. However, they ARE making money for the school, and by the logic of his argument that "they make revenue for the school, so they deserve a cut," other students should be paid all the same. Academics are important too.

I'd like to point out that my opponent did not once use the word "scholarship" in the last round, even though I provided substantial evidence that the students in football and basketball and other sports where the students would get paid ALREADY are compensated in their scholarships. And in addition to that, because they are getting compensated and swimmers are not, why should football players deserve more money in replacement for a job? They are already essentially getting paid. Because I have used trusted sources to show that students that would be getting paid under con's plan (football and basketball players) are already getting paid, it is necessary for my opponent to provide a counter argument, or the point goes to pro.

I am quite confused what con means when he says that high school students cannot maintain jobs! It is a FACT that many high school students have part time jobs. Because high school athlete's inability to get one of these jobs, shouldn't they TOO be compensated? If they bring in money, they deserve a piece of the pie.

My opponent says that my statistics fail to take into account the advertising the athletic departments bring in, but uses no evidence to back up the claim. Additionally, because that theoretical money would be coming in from advertising, they could not have it specifically earmarked to pay athletes. If there were money there, the money would be going back into the school somehow, and it is quite doubtful that the athletes would ever get any of it anyway.

Now that I have defended my cases, I shall refute my opponent's.

My opponent does not address my assertion that it is not an illegal boycott being made, and that it is just a rule. Also, con does not address the fact that because sports are an extracurricular, it is the athlete's choice to do it or not. They go into the season not expecting to be paid, and because of that, it shouldn't be considered a job.

My opponent then uses an EXTREME hyperbolic statement that I do not appreciate. "However if a serial killer where to kill someone and not be caught would that change the fact that it is not illegal? Absolutely not! Just because something is happening that is illegal doesn't mean that it should continue happening!"
And I'm not doing this to correct con's spelling, but just to clarify, the statement should read "However if a serial killer [were] to kill someone..."
His argument that compares a serial killer to the NCAA is preposterous. Obviously, if we knew where the serial killer was, we would arrest them! You cannot compare a serial killer to the current status of not paying student athletes. OBVIOUSLY, it would be wrong to not imprison a serial killer, con... but you cannot make a comparison between the two situations. The NCAA has made this rule in broad daylight, and it is widely accepted as an approved practice. So please, refrain from comparing "A person who attacks and kills victims one by one in a series of incidents"(1) to the people that monitor college sports.

Because of all these reasons, I urge a vote for pro.

(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
msheahan99

Con

msheahan99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
michaelperry13

Pro

I really do not have anything more to add. I do hope you will return to make a closing statement. I extend all of the arguments I have already stated. If you do not return for the final round, this will be interpreted as a forfeit. Either way, it was a pleasure to debate you.

For all the reasons I have stated in the past rounds, I believe that college athletes should not be paid.

Vote pro.
msheahan99

Con

msheahan99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by paigeb 3 years ago
paigeb
michaelperry13msheahan99Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: In the beginning, I did agree with con. However, as the debate continued on, I started to sway towards pro. Because con did forfeit two rounds, and could not refute pros arguments, I will have to give pro the point. I did catch a few spelling errors with con. I do believe con did have more reliable sources and provided them at the right time. Even though pro did add them later on, it was basically after pro got caught for not citing. It was a mistake, and I have done it in a debate too, but I will have to give that to con. However, out of all the criteria, I will have to vote pro.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
michaelperry13msheahan99Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't feel comfortable applying any points outside of conduct. Pro gets those due to his opponents forfeits. Pros arguments could use more tweaking.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
michaelperry13msheahan99Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.