The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

College football player receiving a stipend or living expense

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,987 times Debate No: 15937
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




In my communications class I have repeatedly debated the topic of paying college football players because they are unable to work. Due to how much time is spent in the off season as well as in season. I am a college football player myself and find it hard to support my personal expense. Toiletries, clothes, food other than the dining hall and even a night out once and a while. Having school paid for is indeed a big burden off my shoulders but school alone is not the financial issue of any college student.
There is also the fact that that the university's make so much money off the players which a portion of that revenue should go to the players. After all they are the one's people come to see. College coaches make allot of money, just half their salary without incentives would be more than enough to help out the players. A reasonable number would be 500 dollars a month, which can go a long way in the hands of an athlete that is not working.
On many occasions when arguing this topic I have been told that college football players should just work because other students do, which is true. However, I argue that the university and the NCAA make too much money not to justify some form of reward for the players. The rule the NCAA has in place is that college football players are "amateurs" and that payment would change they way they are looked at. Which I agree with but I am asking for a stipend or a living expense to help with things that come with being a human being.
Simply, there are no arguments to pay high school football players because it is simply not plausible. The national high school football association does not make billions of dollars a year that off the players.


Not all universities and colleges are on a level playing field when it comes to sports/football. Divisions range from division 1, 1-A 1-AA through division 3, yet division 3 players cannot get a scholarship to play sports. It's no secret that division 1 coaches make millions of dollars but not all college coaches earn million dollar incomes. Division 2 coaches earn between $70,000 to $100,000 with few above the $100,00 mark.

The amount of money a university or college makes is of no concern to a student athlete, especially to a student athlete that is on a full scholarship. As an athlete on scholarship, a player is indeed being compensated. The players are being provided with a free education, room and board and meals in exchange for his talent on the football field. For example, UCLA is a public institution in Division 1. The tuition for UCLA is a bit over $11,000 but I will round down to $11,000. Tuition costs for 4 years equates to $44,000. If your a full scholarship football player for UCLA you're getting a minimum of $44,000 to play football there. All other 4 year students pay the cost but those athletes on scholarship pay nothing.

A "reasonable" number of $500 equates to $4,500 per academic year or $18,000 over 4 years. This may seem reasonable to you but consider that professional football players in the Arena Football League get paid between $500 and $1,000 per game. A low end AFL player will earn $9,000 for the season. Your reasonable number of $500 equates to half of a professional players salary.
Debate Round No. 1


I was not clear on my topic but I concentrating on division 1 athletes. However, division 3 player not receiving a scholarship is no ones fault. Simply there can not afford it.

Again, fans go to a college football game to see college football players play but all the money generated should be of no concern to the players. This has to make sense here now, if college football player are being compensated which means to give equal to, or to make an counter balancing payment. One example would be the university of South Carolina, when using the highest numbers a student would have to pay up to 18,00 dollars a year. That is including room board, food, tuition and books. The math of of that is 72,000 over a course of 4 years. Now in those same four years, using the last four as an example the university of South Carolina has made, 148 million dollars off of there football team. Now how is that fair compensation when to the football players.

Now on the matter of Arena football and the AFL. Yes is it half of what a professional athlete makes in another league. But there league is a very low budget league. Meaning the payment they receive for there play is fair COMPENSATION for what they do. A better argument would be to compare the numbers to how the football team generates.


College athletics are considered "amateur" for a reason. This has nothing to do with "fair" to the players. People attend college football games to watch college football not specifically the players. Many also attend for nothing more than school pride and to support their universities. Also not all players on a team have the same skill level. Do you think it would be fair for the star college QB to get the same compensation as the 3rd string QB? How about the punter getting the same level of "fair" compensation than the starting center? What about the player who is not on full scholarship? This is a slippery slope.

What you fail to look at is the fact that College Football and Division 1 Universities fund the entire Athletic Departments of those schools and football revenue does not equate to profit. According to Forbes magazine, the University of South Carolina's football program generated a little over $58,000,0000 for the 2009 season. They also spent over $22,000,000 on the football program for a "profit" of $35,000,0000. What we don't know is how much of that $35,0000,000 is left over without knowing how much of that money was spent on the other 18 NCAA teams at that school. What I do know is that for the same 2009 season, Universities like Vanderbilt and Mississippi did not turn a profit in football. That's right $0 of profits were generated.

Additionally, if college football revenue were to be able to fund their respective athletic departments and still have money left over for a true profit than perhaps your position would make more sense to me. However, we know this not to be the case as if this were possible, universities would not have to rely on federal subsidies in order to operate their athletic departments. Not all Division 1 schools generate the revenues that South Carolina does.

You are mistakenly using revenue to base your position when you should be looking at profit. Just because a Division 1 football program turns a profit does not mean that the university makes a profit. To take my position a step further, what about players who play Division 1A football? Is there schedule any less hectic than a Division 1 player? Why shouldn't a Division 1A player get compensated? Oh, because they can't afford it? What if you are a college baseball player? Just because you play baseball you shouldn't be compensated even though it's a much more difficult sport?

The purpose of attending a college or university is to obtain an education, not to play sports. Putting college football players on a pedestal by compensating them for play would be unfair and unjust to all other student athletes.
Debate Round No. 2


wtchandl forfeited this round.


In closing, I believe that I have made the case the college football players should not receive a stipend for living expenses nor receive any monetary compensation for their participation in college athletics, especially those on full scholarship. Students attend colleges and universities in order to obtain an education and those on scholarship are having some if not all of their educations paid for in return for their athletic abilities. Many, including my opponent, look at the revenue being generated without realizing that not all Universities generate the same amount of revenue and that revenue does not equate to profit. Last, there is no reason that college football players should be placed on a pedestal. They are no different than any other college athlete, many of whom are able to work on a part time basis in order to assist with the academic endeavors. I thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cobo 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet