In the continuing debate about whether or not to pay college players, the arguments always center around men's sports and just the revenue-producing ones at that. Proponents seem to think that since these athletes are the ones bringing in all the money, they should be able to benefit from that monetarily. If not, this boils down to exploitation by the NCAA and individual universities that rake in the ever-increasing TV contract and merchandising dollars on the backs of these young players - players who often can't afford even the basics like going out to dinner with their friends.
Since many of these players come from economically disadvantaged households, corruption ensues. Overzealous boosters take it upon themselves to entice players to commit to their schools by offering cash, cars and privileges. We've seen bust after bust when these back room deals come to light, but lately the stories have gotten a little disturbing. Instead of hearing about players getting thousands of dollars in illegal cash from boosters, some players are selling their memorabilia or their names in exchange for just some basic comforts.
The stark contrast of these players struggling to get by in spite of the millions of dollars they're bringing into their institutions seems unfair. But is paying the players the answer? Would all the impropriety stop if the NCAA just provided these athletes with some spending money? Absolutely not. So if it doesn't solve the impropriety problem, why do it?
Some have argued that the athletes are getting paid already. They get a "free" education. In fact, the education they're getting is not "free" at all.
Student-athletes work for every penny of that scholarship money when they show up for hours of practice followed by hours of scouting video followed by hours of weight training and conditioning. Not to mention all the meetings, travel and wear and tear on their bodies. These athletes put their all into winning games and representing the school well. All the while they're also going to class, studying, writing papers and taking exams in order to keep their grades up to stay eligible.
And this "free" education does not include a diploma for many of these athletes. In the big sports, the graduation rates are abysmal. Many players jump to the pro ranks early and others just never finish school. So what good does this "free education" actually provide for them in the jobs market?
Without these athletes there would be no TV contracts, there would be no jersey sales and there would be no butts in the seats. Thus, the idea of paying the players and allowing them to share in the revenue they bring in has emerged. As the discussion gets more and more serious, the details seem to be the biggest hindrance. How in the world could universities get away with just paying football and men's basketball players? Answer: They couldn't.
In order to be fair, and the NCAA does attempt to be fair, the practice would have to be implemented across all sports and all genders. Title IX states that "No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid."
Doesn't a monetary incentive count as a "benefit of" athletics that women should not be excluded from? You can't pay men's basketball players and not women's basketball players. You can't pay women's basketball players and not women's volleyball players. So how could this work?
Since many of these players come from economically disadvantaged households, corruption ensues. Overzealous boosters take it upon themselves to entice players to commit to their schools by offering cash, cars and privileges. We've seen bust after bust when these back room deals come to light, but lately the stories have gotten a little disturbing. Instead of hearing about players getting thousands of dollars in illegal cash from boosters, some players are selling their memorabilia or their names in exchange for just some basic comforts.
The stark contrast of these players struggling to get by in spite of the millions of dollars they're bringing into their institutions seems unfair. But is paying the players the answer? Would all the impropriety stop if the NCAA just provided these athletes with some spending money? Absolutely not. So if it doesn't solve the impropriety problem, why do it?
Some have argued that the athletes are getting paid already. They get a "free" education. In fact, the education they're getting is not "free" at all.
Student-athletes work for every penny of that scholarship money when they show up for hours of practice followed by hours of scouting video followed by hours of weight training and conditioning. Not to mention all the meetings, travel and wear and tear on their bodies. These athletes put their all into winning games and representing the school well. All the while they're also going to class, studying, writing papers and taking exams in order to keep their grades up to stay eligible.
And this "free" education does not include a diploma for many of these athletes. In the big sports, the graduation rates are abysmal. Many players jump to the pro ranks early and others just never finish school. So what good does this "free education" actually provide for them in the jobs market?
Without these athletes there would be no TV contracts, there would be no jersey sales and there would be no butts in the seats. Thus, the idea of paying the players and allowing them to share in the revenue they bring in has emerged. As the discussion gets more and more serious, the details seem to be the biggest hindrance. How in the world could universities get away with just paying football and men's basketball players? Answer: They couldn't.
In order to be fair, and the NCAA does attempt to be fair, the practice would have to be implemented across all sports and all genders. Title IX states that "No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid."
Doesn't a monetary incentive count as a "benefit of" athletics that women should not be excluded from? You can't pay men's basketball players and not women's basketball players. You can't pay women's basketball players and not women's volleyball players. So how could this work?