The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Should college athletes 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 15,881 times Debate No: 15035
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




I believe that the top recruited college athletes should be paid based on their performance. The athlete's generate millions of dollars in revenue for the colleges he or she play for and are not allowed to get jobs to help them out financially. The athlete devotes so much time to the team that he or she plays for and if that team wins a National Title or reaches the Final Four those colleges reap the benefits of all the athletes hard work. If he or she were getting paid then the athlete would have incentive to stay in school for the 4 years and also earn a degree because we all know the average career length for a professional athlete is in the single digits in all sports so he or she would have something to fall back on.


This is an interesting concept, and I thank my opponent for starting it.
Also I would like to point out there is a character of 1000 in this debate.

1. If college athletes are paid, the all other members of other extra curricular activities would need to be payed as well. that includes, but is not limited to, Debate Teams, Cheer Squad, and Other various clubs. but the purpose of secondary education is not to pad the pockets of students who wish to excel, but to further education.

2. If we pay college athletes this will lower education in High School. Students who participate in Athletic programs in High school will feel no need to study and excel in high school because they think they will simply be able to ride through the education system sports alone; and even live off of sports in college

Also, in response to my opponent's claim about college athletes not being able to get jobs; many college kids cannot get jobs, there is nothing special about these athletes warranting them pay.
Debate Round No. 1


Point1. If a debate team took in $87 million in revenue and $65 million in profits like the University of Texas football team did in 2008, they too should be paid. However, I am merely talking about the top college athletes who are making these schools millions in profit.

Point2. I did not state that the guidelines and requirements to be accepted in these colleges would differ; I simply said that these athletes should be given a salary from the profits they helped gain. That being said, no student would feel that they would be able to ride through the education system on sports, the standards they are held to academically would remain the same, and in my opinion could even be raised.

What's special about these athletes is that they earn the colleges they play for millions in profits. I never said they were better then other students, I believe they should be paid for the results they produce.



My opponent is not looking to the real point that the Con is trying to make here it's really not about money at all. Effort goes into both whether it's athletics or debate. once out of college people who where in debate programs go onto to have aspiring careers as lawyers, or teachers, or such. Why shouldn't these aspiring students who will inevitably bring revenue to America's cities and towns not be paid?

If these athletes want to Play football, let them! Their campuses will get funding from it; and they ultimately benefit from getting a better education. But, if making money is more important to these young athletes; then let them quit football and get a job.

The bottom line is this, college is not a place where the primary purpose is football; debate; choir, or any other extracurricular activity, but it is a place to learn and to become a functional member of society. Let's keep it this way instead of glorifying these sports anymore than we already do in the end it's just a game.
Debate Round No. 2


My point is the money these student athletes are generating for their programs, so your rebuttal is irrelevant to the (MY PRO) argument. These athletes practice and play and put themselves in harms way for the program they are a part of. When was the last time a debate caused physical harm? And I don't mean tripping on the way to the podium. These student athletes are producing money now for the college they play for and this has nothing to do with future revenue.
I never said making money was more important but let us not pretend that boosters don't exist in these top programs. These student athletes are being exploited & it's dirty business what goes on in these schools. If they generate the money they should be paid. Students who study at these schools with these top programs should thank the athletes for generating the money it takes for them to have the highest level of professors, classrooms, technology & campuses that provides them the best platform for success.


These are my final statements in this debate based on all prior arguments.

1. All students in compulsory education (K-12) make money for their school by simply attending. this money is pumped back into the school to help further education; the same is true for college. We understand that High School athletes are not paid for their sport, college athletes should not be paid either.

2. Many if not most people in college are unable to have jobs that's why we have student loans, but education is a sacrifice. there is nothing making these athletes choose their sport over a job except their own choice. Although given that college athletes already get many perks, such as free education, endorsements, minor to major fame. it would seem they are already doing fairlt well

3. They are most certainly not being exploited, they are living their passions. refer to my second rebuttal as it is applicable, they choose sports willingly, and are by no means under exploitation.

I urge you now Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by cassisdad 6 years ago
Both are correct... and wrong. Atheletes should be paid... the same as any other student.... as work study, by the hour, for the hours they spend practicing. The better atheletes already get full ride scholarships including room and board. They get free trips, hotel stays, per diem money on the road, atheletic clothes, and many other benefits from the school. This means they are paid more than average atheletes. Providing work study pay allows them to have money in their pockets for personal needs, bills like car payments and insurance, and spending money for the pizza and beer they would never dream of consuming during the season. lol Every athelete works hard and sacrafices alot of time to their sport. They all deserve some money for their time and dedication to the school. But big money for atheletes has no place in amatuer sports.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
"Con did not refute the argument of disproportionate sport income."

Clarification requested on the above RFD.

Con asserted that if athletes were paid then all other extra-curricular activies should be paid, Pro countered that athletes should be paid because of the much greater amount of money they bring into the institution. Pro did not address this often disproportionate level of income that sport teams can bring into such institutions.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 7 years ago
@kboudreau Yes, of course. I'm working on my final speech right now. Why do you ask?
Posted by kboudreau 7 years ago
Hello,Orange! will you be finishing this debate?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I liked the first contention of the con, we must look at this issue realistically. These athletes spend time and money and provide entertainment, the same as any pro athlete, why not get paid?
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not refute the argument of disproportionate sport income.