The Instigator
bcube1887
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
GuitarSlinger
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

College Athletes Should be Payed

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2018 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 119053
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

bcube1887

Pro

College athletes are undoubtedly some of the hardest working young adults due to the strenuous team schedule and the academic expectations that colleges place on them.

THESIS: NCAA student athletes should be recognized as employees of the NCAA under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

CONTENTION 1: Financially compensating student athletes under the FLSA will incentivize them to stay in college and graduate, Earning more revenue for themselves and their schools. There is little incentive to stay in school for these athletes because star athletes may leave their schools to transfer to more respected schools that will give them greater opportunity to broadcast their talent. Athletes also leave during their college years to pursue professional sports. Dr. Patrick Mclaughlin, Director of the Program for Economic Research on Regulation at George Mason University, Commented that "[in order to] increase the efficiency of" players, Universities should pay them directly. If schools feel that student-athletes shouldn"t be paid while they"re in school, The funds could be held until after college " maybe even paying a bonus for those who graduate". Colleges who reward their athletes with money will experience an increased graduation rate and residing times, And accordingly, Increased monetary profits.

CONTENTION 2: he current allocation of revenue collected from college sports under the NCAA is hugely imbalanced. According to Forbes Magazine, "Much of the huge revenues collected from college athletics do not go directly back into the classroom. . . Instead, A substantial share of college sports" revenues stay "in the hands of a select few administrators, Athletic directors and coaches. " Rather than appropriately paying the people who generate such a colossal sum of money, Colleges retain the benefits for themselves. A study titled "The Price of Poverty in Big Time College Sport" by the National College Players Association as well as Drexel University revealed in 2011 that "the fair market value of the average Division 1 football and basketball player to be $120, 048 to $265, 027, Respectively. " College athletes are not being compensated for their market value, Which is an injustice to them and to their families.

Contention 3: Given that players fundamentally fit the definition of an employee, They should be allowed to unionize. If college athletes were recognized as employees according to the FLSA, The athletes could self advocate for more beneficial standards. Considering that the vast majority of college athletes (mainly football and basketball players) want union rights and fit the description of an employee, Most students would benefit from this increase in power. According to Mark Edelman, Associate professor of law at the Baruch College Zicklin School of Business, "a union would help [athletes] win new financial rights, And secure improved health-care benefits and pension plans. " Many college sports teams, Including the football program from Northwestern University, Petitioned for unionization and were officially recognized as employees by their regional athletics director. As a result, Student athletes should be recognized broadly, And they should have the ability to advocate for themselves.
GuitarSlinger

Con

My argument is simple: Many college athletes are already paid, In the form of scholarships, Which enable them to get a good college education at reduced, Sometimes no, Cost to them. All they have to do is play a sport.

** My Arguments **

Let"s consider Duke University, Which is one of the most successful, Recognizable, And profitable sports programs in all of college sports. . The cost of going to school at Duke is roughly $68K per year regardless of individual. In terms of revenue, It has been said that Duke University averages around $33M a year in revenue based off of it"s basketball program.

Now let"s consider the heavily-recruited star basketball player. Chances are good that if the institution wants that player to play for their school, They will offer a scholarship- they will provide (pay) money to the individual that must be used to pay for going to school there. The school is basically saying, "We will pay for your education, All we ask is that you play basketball for us". The school may lay down other stipulations, Such as a maintaining a certain GPA level, Good behavior, Etc. If the player is really good, The school may even decide to offer a full-scholarship. In the case of Duke, This would be as if they paid the athlete $68K per year (over $270K over 4 years) to simply play the sport, Use the money for school, And keep good grades.

I challenge any 17 year old without a college education to find a job that pays $68K per year.

If the prospective student/athlete feels as if their services (basketball skills) are more valuable than that, They have a simple decision to make"they can choose not to go there and take their services elsewhere"they can take their talents to another school that offers perhaps a more valuable education. And for the Star Athlete, Going to a premier basketball program like Duke, Also gives him the opportunity to parlay this time at the University into millions of dollars in the future. It can be argued that the star basketball player going to Duke is more likely to make millions than he would if he went to a little no-name school, Like Sul Ross University in west Texas. So, If this Student-Athlete chooses Duke University, Not only is he getting a very good education for free, He"s also getting the opportunity to make more in the future since the university offers a "Launchpad" for future earnings that perhaps other schools don"t offer.

Now perhaps it could be argued "Not all athletes get scholarships to go to school". True, But it could also be argued that these athletes are not the reason the program is making a lot of money (it"s rare that fans go to games or don apparel for the "bench-warmer")

** My responses to your Contentions **

Contention #1 " if a student/athlete doesn"t understand the value of an education at an esteemed institution like Duke University, Then that"s sad and it"s a failure on those who surround the star-athlete (parents, Relatives, Friends, Coaches, Teachers, Etc). Granted the star athlete may choose to leave school early and try to make millions. However, The institution is under no obligation to incentivize this student any more than other students (but yet they still do, In the form of scholarships). I would argue that the ones who need encouragement (i. E. Incentives) are the lackluster/mediocre students who don"t play sports and are having to pay their way through college, Not the star athlete who is getting a valuable education at little to no cost. The star athlete can at least use their basketball skills and parlay that into a lucrative career, The mediocre non-athlete doesn"t have the basketball skills.

Contention #2 " Just because funds may be mis-managed by University leadership doesn"t mean those funds should go into the pockets of athletes. Besides, The athletes are already getting paid (see argument above). I would argue the funds should be used to help the school more, To help the community etc.

Contention #3 " You make the statement the athlete fits the definition of an employee, But you don"t provide data backing up this claim that they fit the definition of an employee. Nonetheless, I do not believe that your argument is that they should be considered "employees", But rather they should be paid. I believe what you are REALLY saying is, They should be getting paid MORE than what they are already getting paid (I argue they are already getting paid). The institution could very well say "Fine"have it your way, Athletes". . You are now all employees. But guess what, Star-athlete-- we are still only going to pay you $68K a year. " Simply making them employees doesn"t automatically mean the star-athlete is going to get paid what they (or outsiders looking in) think they should be getting paid. At the end of the day, The employee can choose to take their services elsewhere if they feel they are not valued enough (i. E. Paid enough). It"s a decision millions of people in America make each day.

The student-athlete has a question to ask"do I feel my services (i. E. Basketball skills) are being valued fairly at this institution (school". Company")? It"s a simple, Albeit, Not easy, Decision"they can choose to take their services to an institution that will value them more".

I look forward to your response!
Debate Round No. 1
bcube1887

Pro

bcube1887 forfeited this round.
GuitarSlinger

Con

GuitarSlinger forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
bcube1887

Pro

bcube1887 forfeited this round.
GuitarSlinger

Con

Not participating anymore?
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
For the student-athlete, The athletic scholarship is money distributed to the student in return for the student playing a sport. The money must be used for educational expenses (tuition, Room/board, Etc)
Posted by jrardin12 3 years ago
jrardin12
What do you think a scholarship is for?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.