Do Collegiate Athletes Deserve A Piece Of The Pie?
The argument constantly lingers regarding whether college athletes should be paid, and with the allegations against Reggie Bush resurfacing, the debate returns.
Arguments are made for both sides, and typically, the most extensive point in favor of paying athletes involves schools making $18 million simply for showing up to a BCS game, and their athletes receive nothing in return.
For the record, I do not believe college athletes should be paid a salary for playing sports while in school; the ramifications are too consequential. With Ohio State raking in $104.7 million in revenue from their athletic programs, $60.8 million is generated from football alone. Should football players paid the same as women's volleyball? Supporters of fine arts pay $25 to see a performance from the music program; should the lead clarinet player be paid, as well?
The truth is, paying athletes would simply cause the collegiate experience to skyrocket, as if the price of higher education isn't soaring to begin with. In order for Fresno State to compete with USC in recruiting, ticket prices would increase, merchandise would cost more, and the biology major would see an athletic tax added to their tuition and fees.
While Title IX doesn't allow for discrimination, all athletes would likely receive the same benefit. That, itself, may be unfair.
The truth is, college athletes are paid to begin with. When a 4-year degree costs more than $100,000, and your scholarship allows you to graduate without student loans, you've been fairly compensated. In 2004-2005, the University of Texas' athletic department gave out $5.8 million dollars in scholarships to male and female athletes. They're paid.
The problem, however, is that only athletes are subject to aid restrictions. While a music student can receive scholarship offers from unlimited numbers of schools, athletes are capped as to how high the price can go; non-athletes are not.
Let's not kid ourselves: not all students are in school for the education. If Vince Young or Reggie Bush can receive millions of dollars to leave college for the NFL, they'd be foolish not to go.
I don't understand, however, why a savvy businessman hasn't created a minor-league football organization that would allow students to bypass college all together. MLB, NBA, and NHL all have them, why not the NFL?
I suppose it's about the money. It's always about the money.
Arguments are made for both sides, and typically, the most extensive point in favor of paying athletes involves schools making $18 million simply for showing up to a BCS game, and their athletes receive nothing in return.
For the record, I do not believe college athletes should be paid a salary for playing sports while in school; the ramifications are too consequential. With Ohio State raking in $104.7 million in revenue from their athletic programs, $60.8 million is generated from football alone. Should football players paid the same as women's volleyball? Supporters of fine arts pay $25 to see a performance from the music program; should the lead clarinet player be paid, as well?
The truth is, paying athletes would simply cause the collegiate experience to skyrocket, as if the price of higher education isn't soaring to begin with. In order for Fresno State to compete with USC in recruiting, ticket prices would increase, merchandise would cost more, and the biology major would see an athletic tax added to their tuition and fees.
While Title IX doesn't allow for discrimination, all athletes would likely receive the same benefit. That, itself, may be unfair.
The truth is, college athletes are paid to begin with. When a 4-year degree costs more than $100,000, and your scholarship allows you to graduate without student loans, you've been fairly compensated. In 2004-2005, the University of Texas' athletic department gave out $5.8 million dollars in scholarships to male and female athletes. They're paid.
The problem, however, is that only athletes are subject to aid restrictions. While a music student can receive scholarship offers from unlimited numbers of schools, athletes are capped as to how high the price can go; non-athletes are not.
Let's not kid ourselves: not all students are in school for the education. If Vince Young or Reggie Bush can receive millions of dollars to leave college for the NFL, they'd be foolish not to go.
I don't understand, however, why a savvy businessman hasn't created a minor-league football organization that would allow students to bypass college all together. MLB, NBA, and NHL all have them, why not the NFL?
I suppose it's about the money. It's always about the money.
Post a Comment
