The Instigator
wtchandl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

College football players should receive a form of payment for what they do.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 2/22/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,798 times Debate No: 14888
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

wtchandl

Pro

In my communications classes 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 at 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 and even a night out once and a while. Having school paid is indeed a big burden off my shoulders but school alone is not the financial issue of any college student.

Theres also the fact that university's make so much money off the athletes that a portion of 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.
Danielle

Con

Thank you, Pro, for beginning this debate.

My opponent makes two arguments in favor of the resolution:

1. Due to how much time is required to play college football in the off season as well as the regular season, players do not have time to work.

2. The university makes money off athletes; therefore, a percentage of that should go to the players.

First, nobody forces a college football player to make the decision to join a team. If the team has certain time requirements, the player is therefore put in the position to choose the team or choose a job. Indeed people are put in these kinds of predicaments every day of their lives. Music lovers would love to sit home and jam in their garage all day; however, most have made the decision to get a "real job" instead and just keep music as a hobby in their spare time, considering it didn't pay the bills. Of course with enough practice, luck and talent music could pay the bills one day, much like a professional football career can. However in the interim, college football players are no more eligible to receive the benefit of doing something they love and getting paid for it "just because."

Now, it's true that people pay money to watch college players perform; however, Pro is seriously undermining the amount of compensation football players receive because of that. Primarily, as Pro mentioned football players do receive a free education. In other words, they are already being blatantly compensated with thousands of dollars. Moreover they get free room and board, and in almost every single case a dining hall card and other ways to eat for free.

Moreover (what Pro failed to mention), football players are given uniforms, have their coaches and staff paid for, have stadiums built and upkept, get to travel for free, get to stay in hotels for free, get access to top notch medical facilities and doctors, are given the opportunity to prepare for a career in the NFL, get free tutoring, get special access and permission in their classes, get a lot of gear and equipment necessary for game play paid for, etc. All of that costs thousands upon thousands of dollars. In other words, football players most certainly are being compensated -- just not in a traditional way. Instead, they're getting a lot of other things for "free."

Furthermore, this resolution pertains to college football players in particular though there are innumerable other sports teams that require the same amount of time and dedication. Basketball, baseball and soccer are several examples. Additionally, what about the other students who dedicate a lot of time to university causes? Should the players of EVERY college sports team be compensated? If so, how much? It seems a college football player is already living far beyond the means of your average college student.

Finally, for college players to get paid would mean other things, like programs or salaries, would have to be cut. Either that or tuition would be raised for ALL students - even the ones who don't care about football. A few years ago, I was livid when my school (Rutgers University) chose to invest in a football stadium expansion costing upward of $100 million [1]. Of course tuition hikes came at around the same time. This is blatantly unfair, and equivalent to theft -- taking money from the students to pay college players they may never watch. It also impedes on the amount schools can invest in other projects. In short, it's selfish and unnecessary.

Thanks again for beginning this debate, Pro. Back to you and good luck!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
wtchandl

Pro

That is true that nobody forces a college football player to take the scholarship and go to college. But in many cases the athletes has no other choice, meaning it's either play football in college or work a regular job out of high school. Which would not pay for necessity's needed to live a comfortable life. A scholarship covers tuition room and board and a meal plan. There are no others ways of eating besides the dining hall.

Football players do not see any of the thousands of dollars that they are compensated for. A week in the life of a college football player is more time demanding and also physically demanding. At my university the average time spent per week exceeds the time of any campus or off campus job. While they work less hours they choose what happens with there money.

The money that is used for uniforms, equipment, traveling and tutoring comes from somewhere and that's football. If there were no players to play then no money would be generated. Football and the assistance of men's basketball not only pays for its itself and its needs but a football program funds most of the non profit sports like tennis, softball and women's basketball.

The other sports on campus do not in fact demand as much time as football. A college football player must stay over the summer to train unlike, basketball, and baseball and soccer. Football is also the only sport to have a season in the off season meaning spring practices and the spring game that thousands of people once again pay money to come see the players play.

When I argue this issue I asked myself allot, how come people never bring where all the money goes? College football bowl games bring in over a billion dollars in profit alone. The president of the NCAA was paid a million dollars in benefits alone last year. The biggest issue is if the state has the burden of paying the football players tuition, what does the NCAA pay for? Or why do college football coaches made over 5 million dollars a year.

Like the college football chose to go to school and play football, you as a student chose to go to a university with a football. Though you may not have thought about it you risked a tuition increase at some point if the university decided to expand on any sports facility. There are many forms of payment also when it comes to sports, the equipment sponsor pays for traveling and equipment so it can be advertised. It does not cost the university a cent.
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Pro, for responding.

In response to my first point that football players make the choice to play football, Pro contends that many "don't have any other choice" and suggests that their only alternative is to not attend college at all. That is simply not true. Because my parents make too much money, I never qualified for a cent of financial aid or received any help from the government. My parents were also hesitant to co-sign my college loan. As such, I was forced to take out student loans with particularly high interest rates. Like most other students in America, I had to pay for college and not expect a free ride. It's simply untrue a football player has "no other options." If their parents won't or can't help, the government will. The worst case scenario is that they take out a loan. Boo hoo.

Pro continues, "Football players do not see any of the thousands of dollars that they are compensated for. A week in the life of a college football player is more time demanding and also physically demanding." In the last round I already explained exactly what that money goes into (tuition, room and board, dining plan, facilities, equipment, staff salary, etc. etc. etc.) so it doesn't matter that the football players don't "see" the money. It's still there and being utilized. Regarding the number of work hours I've already explained that no sympathy can be had for those who willingly choose to participate in this demanding hobby.

Pro brings up the fact that football generates revenue that helps pay for the things I've mentioned; however, that does not negate my point that football players are compensated in the form of receiving those certain benefits for free. For instance, suppose colleges received money to broadcast their games and used that money to help build a football stadium. Now suppose player X enters the university as a freshman and gets to utilize those facilities for free. Technically the college can charge that player for using those facilities. The player did nothing to help earn money for the stadium. In fact there are A LOT of things the college could charge the player for.

If they wanted to, colleges could charge players to be on their team. I know many players would choose to pay to play for a college team just for the necessary experience and exposure if they plan to go onto the NFL. However, instead the student agrees to sign a contract with the university to provide for certain exchanges. The player gets free tuition, free rent, free food and a plethora of football opportunities and other services free of charge. As I explained, that is their compensation. The value of playing for the team alone (in terms of potential wealth) is incredibly great.

Also, Pro is overcompensating for the amount of revenue a football an average college team generates. For instance, he notes "College football bowl games bring in over a billion dollars in profit alone." I'll go back to using my school as an example. In the last round I mentioned Rutgers University's new 100+ million dollar football stadium. Meanwhile, Rutgers did not attend a bowl game last year. It's a D-1 football school but did not receive anywhere near the amount of funding Pro is alluding to.

Pro's next points are as follows: "The biggest issue is if the state has the burden of paying the football players tuition, what does the NCAA pay for? Or why do college football coaches made over 5 million dollars a year." First, who said the State pays for player's tuition? I'm actually not sure who does, so if Pro can provide evidence that the State pays for university athletes tuition then that would be significantly helpful for my final rebuttal. Second, Pro is once again making a mass generalization about a coach's salary. Only the very best coaches in the country make it to the million dollar mark [1].

Finally, Pro's closing argument is that one who chooses to go to a school with a football program risks a tuition increase, or any other increase necessary to help the football players out. He also pointed out that many times sponsors and the like pay for travel and other necessary equipment, meaning it doesn't cost the university money so there should be left-over money to pay players. However as I've been pointing out, not every college team is a D-1 team with sponsors. This is also a hypocritical argument. On one hand he thinks students should expect a possibility in tuition prices for football; on the other he's ignoring the fact that footall players fully know what to expect when they sign the contract to play football for that school. If it's personal responsibility he's advocating for, it's actually an argument in my favor.

As I said, students sign contracts because the value of playing on a football team is tremendous to them. Some people play play to play on intermural leagues for fun. Meanwhile college players get a lot of perks for free. Sure it's demanding, but that's a decision they make to help prepare them for the NFL. If that's not their goal then they need not play football and can choose to get a job instead, just like everybody else.

[1] http://www.usatoday.com...
Debate Round No. 2
wtchandl

Pro

wtchandl forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the final round. Please extend all of my arguments.

Thanks for the opportunity to debate anyway, Pro, and good luck.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by wtchandl 6 years ago
wtchandl
Who's fault is that if your not good enough to play on a scholarship dont bitch about paying to play
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Some people play play to play on intermural leagues for fun.***

From R2, that should read "Some people pay to play on intermural leagues for fun."
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Some people play play to play on intermural leagues for fun.***

From R2, that should read "Some people pay to play on intermural leagues for fun."
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
Really, not having to pay a chunk of the 45 grand or whatever college costs should be enough.
Posted by wtchandl 6 years ago
wtchandl
D-1 schools pay tuition in one home football game. The State schools Dont have to pay the players scholarships.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 6 years ago
resolutionsmasher
it's called tuition doofus

Taking a huge chunk off of what I pay to them is what I call payment.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
wtchandlDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Well that was disappointing there at the end :I either way, I feel Con would have still been the obvious winner.
Vote Placed by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
wtchandlDanielleTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: same as below
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 5 years ago
Vi_Veri
wtchandlDanielleTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: pro forfeited - con had better arguments