Why student athletes should not get paid

Read why Coach Brent feels student-athletes should not be paid and why the NIL and monetization of college athletes' brand will create a slippery slope. Starting this summer college student-athletes will be able to monetize their name, meaning make money from their own personal brand. Read why Coach Brent feels student-athletes should not be paid. So much time is spent on likes, comments, and shares.

Instead of rooting for a variety different teams, there would only be a few that people would want to watch. With fewer people wanting to watch these games, the colleges will result in a loss of revenue. So would a college really want to lose more money just by paying students to play a sport? In the past, students would make decisions based off of how successful they will be at that school. Now, these athletes will base their decisions off of how much each college pays.

Rather than focusing on the schoolwork aspect of college, they will compare colleges and see who pays their athletes the highest. An important question to ponder is what will a college athlete really spend their money on?

By giving them more, this just guides them in a worse direction. Athletes still have the opportunity to take out loans like every other student. Beginning in , the National Consortium for Academics and Sports aids students by finishing their degrees at no cost. On the flip side, students still had to participate in 10 hours of community service. This allows the athletes to help out the community and have all their costs paid off.

Colleges should not pay their athletes at the expense of hosting entertaining games. If it would negatively affect the thrill of the sport, why bother paying the athletes then? Rebecca is a senior at Del Val.

This is her third year writing for The Delphi, and this year she is an Editor-in-Chief. She cheers for World Cup Zenith, View All Events. View Results. Zolton dissects past. The history of Mr. Patrick J. Mancini: Holland. Jon Lyman: Alexandria. Debora Frank: Kingwood. Lynda DeFrancesco: Kingwood. The political climate of Why college athletes should be paid.

Cancel reply. Your email address will not be published. RSS Feed. If a student doesn't hold a part-time job , where does that money come from besides their parents? Athletes constantly risk injury and therefore deserve proper compensation. A seriously injured athlete could lose their scholarship which is guaranteed only for one year at a time , jeopardize their opportunity to play professionally and potentially earn millions, or even face lifelong disability if the damage is permanent.

We're far more savvy today about concussions and the long-term effects of chronic traumatic encephalopathy CTE. One of the primary arguments against paying student-athletes rests on the assumption that they already receive full college scholarships.

But as we've discussed, this is seldom the case — most athletes only receive partial scholarships. If a university decided to pay student-athletes, where would that money come from? Not likely from the school itself.

Of the roughly 1, athletic programs governed by the NCAA, only 25 had a net positive revenue in The vast sums earned from football and basketball subsidize all other sports on campus. And not, of course, from the NCAA. A likely scenario would involve universities cutting minor sports to pay athletes competing in the marquee sports. So while a few athletes would benefit financially, a greater number of students would see their athletic opportunities disappear.

Exactly who gets paid and how much? The economics of a paid-athlete system is messy at best. At worst, it's chaotic and threatens team morale. Should all athletes be paid? That's not likely. How about only football and basketball players? What determines how much each player should earn? Is the third-string left guard worth as much as the starting quarterback?

Will the coach make these determinations? What if the coach's son plays on the team? Assuming a free-market system, the chasm between the haves and have-nots would widen even further. Universities best positioned to pay athletes top dollar would win bidding wars and recruiting battles against institutions with limited budgets.

Athletic competition nationwide would suffer as a result. Might this exacerbate booster interference and create a black market for top talent funded surreptitiously? Paying student-athletes turns them into professionals and sullies the purity of amateur athletic competition. Student-athletes are students first and foremost, attending college primarily to receive an education and secondarily to compete in their sport.

College students should participate in sports for the love of the game, not for financial gain, following the long-forgotten credo held dear by Olympic athletes. Title IX stipulates that colleges must provide equal opportunities for male and female athletes. Does this rule apply to payment structures, too, though? Would a university have to pay female athletes in aggregate the same amount as their male counterparts?

Not necessarily — but a school would be required to ensure that female athletes receive proportionate opportunities for scholarships. This quandary offers no easy solution.