The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

NCAA football players shouldn't be paid.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,254 times Debate No: 51730
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




First round is acceptance.


NCAA football should be paid for their work, just as any other profession should be.

NCAA football players are already paid for their skills in the form of tuition and housing at their team's school. To add more to that reimbursement is only fair to the students, considering the revenue generated by their talent on national television and local ticket sales. The income from college football games goes directly to the university to be used at the will of the executives, just the same as in the NFL. However, in the NFL, the players of course need to be paid, so why should the young NCAA players be excluded from monetary compensation? The college league as a whole is much smaller in terms of average media exposure and the player salaries should be in proportion, first compensated with tuition and living expenses, then supplemented based on performance. To profit from the talents of others without due compensation is slavery.
Debate Round No. 1


But this wouldn't be fair to the other sports teams like basketball or baseball, assuming the college has one. They should have gone to college for an educationand to play football, not to just play football. They never got paid in the past, why now. It is not slavery because they don't have to play football and they know coming to college that they won't get paid for it.


Compensation should not be limited to football players, all student athletes risking their physical well being should be compensated. Football players first and foremost, due to the risks involved in playing football professionally. Concussions, chronic injuries and the persistent possibility of a debilitating injury which could end a career. To put these players at risk with no compensation is immoral.

"They should have gone to college for an educationand to play football, not to just play football."

Though some students view their college sports career as a free ride to a degree, it is by no means the only motivation. A professional sports career is the sole goal of many athletes. Furthermore, some have no other option; sports is the only way some people can make a living. To have 4 additional years of income can help provide for these young athletes starting out, required to spend hours working in the gym and on the practice field.

Again, where does the money in NCAA come from and go to? Television airtime, brand sponsorship and ticket sales revenue is poured into the NCAA and on the other side, where does it all go? Tuition cost continues to increase annually; certainly it does not go to the students, much less the athletes. A NCAA student is required to wear the equipment provided by the university under the contract between the college and the sports company (Nike, Reebok, Under Armour"). These companies profit enormously, yet the student athletes do not see a dime. As seen in the following article, Nike pays under $80,000 for a 3 year sponsorship deal at Duke University and receives $1.2 million in return. In this deal, the school receives no money for their students' talents, much less the athletes on the field. In the NFL, companies must pay to sponsor the athletes. If this did not happen, we would not have an NFL. Yet, student athletes are expected to be paid wages (non-monetary) that are extremely disproportionate to the economic value they provide.
Debate Round No. 2


These colleges already give them housing, heat, water, and light, much cheaper than it would be for a regular person. They get free equipment. They get a gym with no membership fee. Why should they give them anymore? Some colleges are businesses, so they have to make money. Most play football in college to get drafted in the NFL, so they will make millions there anyway. All that plus fame if you are good and you get on tv all the time. They never got paid in the past, why now?


"They never got paid in the past, why now?"

This unsupported argument is an example of status quo bias. That is, that the old system is good BECAUSE it currently exists. Furthermore, the purpose of the debate is to determine if NCAA players SHOULD be paid. For the purpose of determining a future course of action most beneficial to the will of all parties involved, especially the athletes and NCAA board of directors, the question should focus on whether the athletes SHOULD be compensated, regardless of the past or current systems. This focus on what should occur, rather than what does, will instantly disregard any bias for or against, based on the past or present, or any bureaucratic system, flawed or perfect. Once a consensus is reached, the practical options of implementing the complex changes necessary, if any, can be discussed.

As previously stated and referenced, the compensation the athletes receive is extremely disproportionate to the economic value they provide to the NCAA as a whole and its sponsors. This does not imply that colleges should not make money from the student athletes, only that they give more to the athletes.

"Most play football in college to get drafted in the NFL, so they will make millions there anyway."

This is absolutely not true. Most collegiate athletes do not make it to the NFL, and they are fully aware of this fact. In the following article, it is estimated that under 7% of college football players matriculate to the NFL; an approximation that intentionally over-estimates the matriculation rate. This means that over 93% of college football players will NOT have NFL careers. These players are well-aware of this fact, yet choose to risk their well-being and forgo other career options, including semi-pro football. They receive no compensation off of the university grounds.
Even the star college athletes cannot earn money for skills and media influence, forfeiting all benefits of their success to their home university and the NCAA. They cannot earn money until they leave the NCAA. The are not only NOT paid for their talents and influence, but are robbed of the opportunity to earn money independently of the NCAA.
Debate Round No. 3


They already have scholarships, so they are going to college for free. So technically they are already paid with that. And not all colleges can afford to pay every football player let alone every athlete there. They are student athletes, not professional athletes. They are not employees.


xm109sr forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by sojorapo 2 years ago
Your statement that college football players "deserve to be rewarded with something" fails to recognize the hundreds or even thousands of student athletes who are given full scholarships. These athletes are rewarded in the form of payment for college, which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is true that these kids are putting in extremely hard work to earn their scholarships.You could, however,look at it from a different angle, that student athletes go to school for free just because they are good at the sport they love. Not only to student athletes go to school for free, but they are also given many benefits, such as free food, which is significant because many college students struggle to pay for food.

That being said, one can still argue that walk-ons and other student athletes who are not given scholarships deserve to be paid, since they do not receive the benefits that many scholarship athletes get. However, paying student athletes would create an even greater disparity between large and small schools. Division I schools already get 53% of the NCAA revenue, while Division II and III schools receive a mere 3% and 4%, respectively. If colleges would be allowed to pay athletes, Division I schools would be able to get the best players by literally buying them, while smaller college sports programs will be left to suffer. While giving more benefits, like food and clothes, to those athletes who are struggling financially, is a possible solution, paying student athletes is NOT the answer.
Posted by Samkatz96 2 years ago
There are many flaws in your argument. In the second round of the debate, you say that college students attend college to learn and not to play football. While this is true for some student athletes, it is not true for all. Many student athletes attend college purely to get the experience of playing at a higher level of sports before taking the giant leap to the pros. Many football athletes such as Eric Swann didn't attend college. Swann played in the NFL for 9 years and he was only good and improved after his third year. Swann is just one example of a player who clearly needed the experience in college to propel him to the next level preparing him for the NFL.

You also mention in the second debate that if the NCAA pays football players, then it would be unfair for the other athletes on other teams. I would just like to ask you this, why would the NCAA only pay football players? I think that all college athletes should be paid, regardless the sport. They risk their bodies and sometimes even lives to play for their schools. They deserve to be rewarded with something.

In the third round of the debate, you say that colleges give their athletes many benefits, such as housing, gym privileges, etc. College athletes are giving so much to the college by representing the schools in tournaments and on national television. It is amazing advertising for the school to have a good sports program. The athletes are not receiving an equal amount from the school as they are giving to the school.
Posted by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
continued from RFD...

Con did argue (in so many words) that the players' labor generates money, so they should see some of that. Pro never provides a reason why they shouldn't get part of their labor, only that they haven't been paid in the past. Con correctly points out that this is a status quo fallacy, of which Pro did not go back to try and refute.
Posted by dmussi12 2 years ago
I might accept. How much time did you provide for responses?
Posted by ScrinTech 2 years ago
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
And then no one would play football.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Normally, Con would lose conduct for forfeiting a round, however because it was the final round, of which no new arguments should be made anyway and it does not impact the debate, no conduct is being docked. But the first round was for acceptance and Con started his round anyway. It is minor, but enough to swing that point. Con used only a few sources and certainly could have done more in that regards, however Pro provided no sources at all, and it is hard to tell one side to put more effort in when their opponent is doing so little. Arguments easily go to Con. For one, Pro shot himself in the foot in the end by saying "technically they are already paid" when talking about scholarships, meaning that he now has to argue that scholarships need to be done away with, but he never did. Con did argue (in so many words) that the players' labor generates money, so they should see some of that. Pro never provides a reason why they shouldn't get part of their labor... more in comme