The Instigator
youngmsc2014
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
patrickbennett
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should College Athletes Be Paid?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,821 times Debate No: 40842
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

youngmsc2014

Con

College athletes should not be paid to go to or perform in college. If they receive money to attend and perform at a college or university then they will have successfully removed their amateur status meaning that they are at a professional level. Because they will be categorized as professionals they would not be allowed to perform at the collegiate level meaning that not only should college athletes not be paid, but they physically cannot be paid. In fact, in a sense college athletes are being paid to play sports in college. They are paid with a college education. They are putting in hours of work and preparation for their respective sport and in return they are receiving a full scholarship. If they received anything above and beyond this scholarship then they would be removing their amateur status. It is not fair for them to make money for playing sports in college while on scholarship and in general college athletes should not be paid. Clearly this rule of not being allowed to make money off of your athletic ability in college has been put in place for a reason and is working effectively.
patrickbennett

Pro

I believe that college athletes should not have a designated salary like a professional, but they should be able to collect money for items such as jerseys and autographs. They are bringing in so much money for the school because of their athletic ability and the school is paying them to be there with education which is fine, but there should not be a rule not allowing them to sell themselves. With the fame they receive while playing they have a chance to make a profit, but the NCAA does not allow it because it takes away there amateur status. If the players could sell themselves with items such as jerseys and autographs then they might stay in college longer instead of going to the pros and therefore change the landscape of college sports.
Debate Round No. 1
youngmsc2014

Con

I disagree. I don't think college athletes should be able to make money off of merchandise becasue once again that is making money for playing a college sport. While they do bring in an excess of money for their respective university or college, most of that is from merchandise. If you allow athletes to collect money from selling merchandise such as a jersey or memorabilia then the school will not receive as much money from their athletic programs which would result in higher tuition costs and less college students enrolling in school. By allowing athletes to collect that money they are not only removing their amateur status but also directly hurting the university and the country ultimately because less student may not be able to attend college with the higher tuition costs. Also, the athletes can make money in the professional leagues so if they can wait a year or two of not making money, like the rest of the students, then they will get their opportunity to sell themselves. They are first and foremost students, so they should be attending school as a primary reason to go to college. With that said, if they wanted to make money then they should go professional as soon as possible. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as it keeps people interested in college sports because they want to see who the new best athlete is. If athletes could sell their own merchandise, schools would suffer, society would suffer, and the college atmosphere would decline. College athletes should in no way make money or risk the downfall of major establishments.
patrickbennett

Pro

If college players were able to get paid then they would stay in the sport longer. So instead of getting one year out of them the college would get four years, and even with the amount of money the player would receive from sales, the amount the school gets to keep would be a lot more than just a one and done year with the athletes and all of the profits going to the school. Also if the student athlete's primary job is education then the addition of finance would help them grow in their education. They would learn how to manage their money that they made while in a safe environment instead of all of a sudden getting multi-million dollar contracts and being sent out into the world. so now instead of hearing about the Allen Iversons of the world who spend one year unpaid in college and then go out to the real world make millions, and then lose it, you would now have well educated college students with degrees who know how to manage their money. With their money well managed they can give back to the community which would therefore improve society. College athletes should be paid because it would increase school money, create a more educated society, help them manage their money, and help the community.
Debate Round No. 2
youngmsc2014

Con

False. The money a college athlete would make by selling merchandise over four years is nothing compared to what they would make in their first three years of playing professional ball. With that said it is in the best intrest of the student athlete who wants to make money to go strait to the professional level because that's where they would make the most money. Also, colleges would make more money with a one and done because people would have to buy new shirts every year as the player whose shirt they used to have no longer plays at the university. So if the player wanted to make a cut of the schools money from merchandise it would be in the best intrest of the university to let him or her go pro. Its just another reason that college athletes should not be paid because they would be taking away money from their university. If they want money they should enter a draft and go professional this way they make more money, the university makes more money, and they aren't breaking any rules. Your analogy to Allen Iverson is accurate but not always true. Ever heard of someone who wins the lottery and blows it all? Well those people, not all but most, had some sort of income no matter how small and they lost all of their money. Therefore, just because he/she has no experience with a lot of money does not mean that they would lose it all because those who won the lottery and lost it all knew how to deal with money. In fact, the majority of all athletes don't lose their money and look, they didn't make money in college. The statistics are in my favor. It is very rare to come across a student athlete who loses all of their money immediately after turning pro. College athletes should not be paid because if they want to make money they should turn pro, it will benefit them, the university, and society financially, all while staying within the rules.
patrickbennett

Pro

College athletes need to be paid. Last year the NCAA made over 870 Billion dollars, but they did not need to pay any of the players. I understand that some people's opinion would be "Well they are getting an education so that's their payment", but what happens if they get injured? once they get injured they lose their scholarship and now need to pay for their education on their own. Even you need to agree that a large amount of the NCAA athletes are not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree and will not be able to get an academic scholarship. But here is a good idea!!!! the athletes can just get jobs! that way they can get money and have some sort of income right? False. The NCAA restricts its athletes from having a job because they do not want them cashing out with any benefits for being a player. But why don't they go to the pro's and be an athlete there? I'm sure for players such as Jabari Parker. But hey i mean some players are getting paid aren't they? Just look at the Michigan Fab Five. They got one of the best recruiting classes ever and went to the championship twice, sounds almost like cheating huh... Well that's because it was. Players on the Michigan team were getting cash benefits from boosters. So if you want to build a super team just pay them and then nobody will know! you will attract all the star athletes and your team will be unstoppable. How about the NCAA pays the athletes so then the game will not be tainted with super teams formed because of player's interest in financial benefits.
Debate Round No. 3
youngmsc2014

Con

College athletes should not be paid let alone "need" to be paid. Does every student in college "need" to be paid? No. The reason that the NCAA did not need to pay the players is becasue they are a business and have expenses and other ways to spend their money. They have employees, advertising, and other expenses that the money goes towards. Also the NCAA is a non-profit so they are in business to regulate collegiate sports not to make money. The money they make gets poured into scholarships, future year's business, and a cushion so they don't collapse. If they get injured then they should have to pay the school to go to college. Why wouldn't they? If a student is on scholarship and they do not maintain high grades than they are stripped of their scholarship and have to pay the school. In both scenarios the students are stripped of their scholarships for not performing. One is physically they can't perform, and one is they aren't performing, either way they aren't doing what the college is paying them to do. Not everyone who attends college is awarded an academic scholarship, so those athletes who aren't the brightest bulbs need to put in the hard work academically to achieve a scholarship. If they put the same amount of effort into school as they do sports then maybe they will get a scholarship espically since they will have so much time because they can't play their sport. IF THEY SUFFERED A CAREER ENDING INJURY AND WERE STRIPPED OF THEIR SCHOLARSHIP THEN GUESS WHAT, THEY WOULDN'T BE A COLLEGE ATHLETE ANYMORE AND WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE TEAM FOR HEALTHIER STUDENTS. With that said, the NCAA cannot restrict a normal college student from going out and getting a job because that is out of their jurisdiciton. SO TRUE. They should go out and get a job like every other college student to off set some of the cost they will be taking on as a STUDENT. If you pay the athletes money to come to your school it will be revealed to the public sooner or later and will come back to bite you in the you know where so no school is going to do that. They would lose money, scholarships, and a chance at a championship. Just look at John Calipari. He has coached many teams to the Final Four and guess what, he technically has only coached two teams to the Final Four because he cheated and they found out. If the NCAA paid the athletes then collegiate sports would be corrupt and the players would have all of the leverage. Look at the NBA lockout, the NHL lockout, or the NFL lockout. All of which resulted from paid players rebelling against the head of their leagues looking for more money. This would happen only on a scale 105 times larger. The total number of athletes in the four major sports is roughly 4000. The total number of student athletes playing a college sport reaches roughly 420000. If you had to pay each an every one of them you would either be in debt or eventually be in debt when they come knocking on your door demanding more money. If the NCAA paid the players they would be in debt, super teams would still form because they are getting their money so they can go wherever they want, and the players would lose sight of why they are even in college, to get an education not make money. They are in college to make money in the future not now, or at least it is not a priority. The NCAA has these rules for a reason, its fair, realistic, and it works. College athletes should not be paid or at least not for the reasons you mentioned above.
patrickbennett

Pro

Paying college athletes would completely change the landscape of the game. Look at the absolutely, wonderful, amazing, untouchable 2013 recruiting class of Kentucky for basketball. They received 5 out of the top 9 recruits. Since there is no money involved they were all able to go to the same school and that school didn't need to worry about costs or anything to have an amazing recruiting class. Now lets see what happens if there is money involved... Do you think that the top recruits will all go to the same place..? of course not, no school would be able to afford them. if one school cant afford all of the superstars then that allows for more teams to grab hold of individual superstars. Now i can understand the issue of a salary for a collegiate athlete, but they should get money for their individual achievements. Lets use the greatest quarterback to walk the face of the earth as an example, Johnny Football. He won the Heisman last year, the school was awarded money, all he got from his stellar, unrivaled, unmatched, amazing performance was a trophy and a hug from his mom. He should be entitled to that money just as if a student won a cash prize for academics. Not only do colleges make money off the game itself, but off the players individually and the players do not see a dime of it. College athletes should be payed for their hard work, and to keep the landscape of the game fair.
Debate Round No. 4
youngmsc2014

Con

Your argument is irrelevant and inaccurate. Your examples don't back up your thoughts and your points don't add up. If top recruits really wanted to play together then they would each take a pay cut to allow themselves to attend the same college. Look at the Miami Heat. Three of top twenty players in the NBA each took a pay cut to play on the same team so the organization could afford them. They went on to win two championships, in a row. The Kentucky players still would've been able to attend the same school if they wanted to. Plus if the university had to pay for every player that means that not only is the university not getting the money from the players who have to pay but they have to pay them effectively cutting their income from the program significantly. With a decline in revenue from sports the university will have to raise tuition to cover the cost of salaries and might even see a decline in student population due to increased prices. They should not get money for individual achievements. If the university has to pay its players and those players then receive an award then the money should go to the university to offset their cost of the player's salary. Plus Johnny Football received the Heisman award for his individual achievements but those achievements were a result of his team's play as a group. His team scored touchdowns and won games not just him so you are saying that everyone should make money off that achievement. This would put the university even further in debt. He also got more than just a hug, he got a kiss and his legacy shot through the roof making his draft appeal even higher which affords him a higher signing bonus and more money in the pros. This is enough he doesn't need to be paid for his achievements. By the way no student makes money off their academic achievements unless it is in the form of a scholarship which the players are also entitled to. Players with achievements will eventually receive their money for their hard work in the pros, they just won't see it immediately. Players in college should not be paid as it would not be beneficial to anyone because teams could still stack their teams, universities would lose money, student population would decline, and the game itself would become worse because players would lose sight of the game and only focus on the money. The sport would be corrupt and the players would be out of control. College athletes should not be paid, they should wait until it is legal....in the pros.
patrickbennett

Pro

It doesn't matter if the players lose sight of the game, they are in it to make money just like any other student that goes to college. I'm sure most college students don't have a passionate love for their field, but they seem to like it and see that it is a way to make money. The college athletes look at their sport as a job to make money, so paying them would not destroy the game at all. Some might think "Well if they get paid they are already getting money so they wont have the drive to try" well if they want to make more money then they are going to have to try in order to get into the pros. I think that college athletes should be paid to help benefit themselves, their school, and the level of fairness in the game.
On a side note that is completely unrelated to the topic and is just for your viewing pleasure Mrs. D, RILEY'S COMMENT ABOUT JOHNNY MANZIEL WAS WRONGGGG... HE IS A ONE MAN TEAM $$$$MONEY MAN$$$$
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by tousignantmsc2014 3 years ago
tousignantmsc2014
I agree with Riley that student athletes should not be paid. They are getting a college education for free because of their scholarships. A situation where athletes could be payed would turn into a bidding war between top colleges for athletes which would not benefit college sports.
Posted by MelaragnoMSC2014 3 years ago
MelaragnoMSC2014
I agree with Riley that the student athletes should not be paid for playing for a college. Riley brought up some very good points that persuaded me to believe that the cons out way the pros in this debate. The athletes already earn scholarships to schools if they go to the school for the reason of playing that sport so there is no reason for them to earn extra money on top of that. The scholarships are equivalent if not greater than any amount of money they would receive if they were just paid for playing the sport.
Posted by blarence 3 years ago
blarence
In round one Riley, you made a good statement. Patty Chuck Bennett, you also made good very good points. I believe college athletes should not receive any more money than the schools tuition in a scholarship. It does make sense though on how because of their fame and ability to perform as well as they do that they make their respective schools a ton of income and it is not right how these athletes are not able to get any of the income from their own autographs. Good argument.
Posted by timlatshaw 3 years ago
timlatshaw
Both sides of the argument are argued well and were well represented. I personally believe that college athletes should not be paid and had the same mindset before the debate, but the arguments made in favor of paying athletes are legitimate. All around a well argued topic but I still believe that they should not be paid.
Posted by desaulnierspmsc2014 3 years ago
desaulnierspmsc2014
Who would have guessed a debate about athletes would be a favorite of mine! Besides the masterful use of language -- it proved interesting and informative. I honestly had no opinion about the matter beforehand, and leave this debate still considering the pros and cons (hows that for a diplomatic evasion!). I'll have to check out the Manziel claim.
No votes have been placed for this debate.