NCAA football players shouldn't be paid.
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
"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.
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.
xm109sr forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||5|
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
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.