Hello everyone! This is the Watercooler's first Point/Counter-Point debate (P/CP), and the topic is: Paying College Athletes. Brian Boeke will join me for the opposing view point. The premise of this topic is simple. NCAA football and basketball make the universities gobs of money. Should college athletes get a slice of the pie?
Michael: In a word: No. College athletes should not be paid to play. I will argue that the athletes are already getting paid: full cost of tuition and meal plan. This is quite a substantial amount of reimbursement alone. Even at a relatively inexpensive in-state tuition would cost, at minimum, over $10,000. The athlete is able to get admitted into a place of higher education and get a free degree while participating in a sport they love. Many ordinary students struggle to gain admittance, pay tuition, and have large student loans to payback after graduating. I believe many people underestimate the true value the universities are providing to the student athletes. They are being allowed to showcase their talents to the professional sports world on an enormous platform that is college sports these days. They are given free education that will propel them into a successful, fruitful future if they take advantage of the education being provided.
One argument I absolutely cannot stand is this "if we give the athletes stipends, then they won't take bribes illegally from boosters." Really? Here's a case-in-point that destroys that argument. Johnny Manziel comes from a very well-off family (from oil money). Did that stop him from signing hundreds of memorabilia for a five-figure fee (by the way, five figures is peanuts to him and his family)? Nope. At this point, three memorabilia agents have already come forward and acknowledged paying Manziel for autographs.
I'll conclude by also arguing that this would create unintended consequences, as well as create an unfair recruiting environment. As far as the former, if you pay athletes from the moneymaking sports (football and men's basketball), then Title IX mandates that you must pay all other athletes at the university. Oh by the way, all other sports operate in the red, and are funded in part by the profit generated from football and men's basketball. Take away some of that profit by enforcing stipends to all athletes, and you end up with the universities able (or choosing) to fund less varsity sports, stripping many college athletes of the chance to play varsity sports. Also, bigger universities could afford to pay their student athletes more. This becomes a moot point if you set an NCAA limit, however, certain schools' would have an extremely large advantage as far as what their boosters could afford.
Brian: The question of paying athletes has been around a long time, and it will likely continue for years to come. It is a tough question. On one hand, you have some universities making tens of millions of dollars on sporting events and merchandise. This money could never come if the student athletes did not perform. One the other hand, most (not all) athletes are getting a free education. In addition, they receive a stipend for living expenses, intended to cover the “room and board” of college. In my opinion, athletes should not be paid via contracts or additional stipends similar to a professional, but they should be able to capitalize on their name and success if they are in a position to do so.
The big story in the news is the situation surrounding Johnny Manziel. He apparently signed hundreds of items at several signing sessions for which he was paid. This is a big no-no per the extensive NCAA rulebook. The last time I checked, we live in the United States of America. We are one of the most capitalistic countries in the world. We promote taking advantage of opportunities presented to us. I believe the fact the NCAA denies big time college athletes this right goes against a major tenant that makes this country so great.
The arguments against paying athletes make a lot of sense. Universities cannot afford to fund an athletic department in which the athletes are making some sort of an additional stipend. Yes, the football and basketball programs make millions for some schools, but very few others turn any sort of a profit. I cannot argue against this. I just think if an athlete has the skill level to achieve national recognition and create demand, they should be able to capitalize on it. If a school is selling jerseys with their number on it, they should get a cut. While they don’t have their name on it, it is clear the fans are buying those jerseys because of the player wearing it. Going back to Manziel, it is obvious people desired items with his signature. There should be no restrictions on him taking advantage of this opportunity. This trickles down Brianwas able to make a few bucks off a Big Ten championship ring and was punished for it. While I don’t condone this from a team perspective, I think he should have the opportunity to do this if he desires. Many more examples can be discussed here, but I think you get the point.
Hopefully I have been clear in my delineation between payment for participation and capitalization on fame. For some athletes, the college years are the high point of their athletic careers. The NCAA regulations do not allow them to capitalize on their fame, which can be very fleeting. I believe this is at odds with fundamental values of this country and should be changed.
Michael: You make some good points, Brian. I’m glad you draw a distinction between paying athletes as opposed to letting the players capitalize on their achievements. You are against the universities flat out paying them, but would support the latter. This is, in my mind, a lesser evil, but I’m afraid even that system could be unfairly manipulated. For example, let’s say a certain university (Oregon) has a strong tie to Nike, and Nike agrees to make loads of jerseys for a player to help that school recruit young athletes with the promise of making more money through jersey sales than he could elsewhere. Or, a university with power and rich boosters that could guarantee the purchasing of jerseys and selling of autographs.
Yes, this is the United States of America, land of opportunity. But unless you want college athletics to turn into which universities can flex their monetary powers to entice the greatest student athletes, let’s allow the athlete the opportunity to capitalize on their college success after their collegiate career.
Brian: Both the initial and rebuttal argument seems to give the feel that boosters don’t have a tremendous influence on recruiting, which is fundamentally flawed. Yes, Oregon does have strong ties with Nike because Phil Knight is an alumnus. If it were not for Oregon’s good fortune in having such a famous, prestigious, and most importantly, RICH alumnus, that program would not be anywhere near the national spotlight. Knight donates tens of millions of dollars a year to the university, much of that to aid the athletic department. Just look at their jerseys! I read Knight paid entirely for a new athlete tutoring center (estimated cost: $41.7 million). Most recently, he paid for a $68 million football performance center. Their new basketball stadium is called Michael Knight Arena, named after his son. Similar things go on at many major universities, which they use as a recruiting tool to attract the best athletes.
I don’t believe letting players capitalize on their success outside of the playing field will influence the recruiting situation any more than what boosters already do. No matter what way you slice it, there just is not parity in the recruiting scene. At least if the NCAA loosens the reigns a bit, players like Jason White, Eric Crouch, and Danny Wuerffel might be able to make a few bucks on the fame generated during their most successful athletic years.
Michael: In a word: No. College athletes should not be paid to play. I will argue that the athletes are already getting paid: full cost of tuition and meal plan. This is quite a substantial amount of reimbursement alone. Even at a relatively inexpensive in-state tuition would cost, at minimum, over $10,000. The athlete is able to get admitted into a place of higher education and get a free degree while participating in a sport they love. Many ordinary students struggle to gain admittance, pay tuition, and have large student loans to payback after graduating. I believe many people underestimate the true value the universities are providing to the student athletes. They are being allowed to showcase their talents to the professional sports world on an enormous platform that is college sports these days. They are given free education that will propel them into a successful, fruitful future if they take advantage of the education being provided.
One argument I absolutely cannot stand is this "if we give the athletes stipends, then they won't take bribes illegally from boosters." Really? Here's a case-in-point that destroys that argument. Johnny Manziel comes from a very well-off family (from oil money). Did that stop him from signing hundreds of memorabilia for a five-figure fee (by the way, five figures is peanuts to him and his family)? Nope. At this point, three memorabilia agents have already come forward and acknowledged paying Manziel for autographs.
I'll conclude by also arguing that this would create unintended consequences, as well as create an unfair recruiting environment. As far as the former, if you pay athletes from the moneymaking sports (football and men's basketball), then Title IX mandates that you must pay all other athletes at the university. Oh by the way, all other sports operate in the red, and are funded in part by the profit generated from football and men's basketball. Take away some of that profit by enforcing stipends to all athletes, and you end up with the universities able (or choosing) to fund less varsity sports, stripping many college athletes of the chance to play varsity sports. Also, bigger universities could afford to pay their student athletes more. This becomes a moot point if you set an NCAA limit, however, certain schools' would have an extremely large advantage as far as what their boosters could afford.
Brian: The question of paying athletes has been around a long time, and it will likely continue for years to come. It is a tough question. On one hand, you have some universities making tens of millions of dollars on sporting events and merchandise. This money could never come if the student athletes did not perform. One the other hand, most (not all) athletes are getting a free education. In addition, they receive a stipend for living expenses, intended to cover the “room and board” of college. In my opinion, athletes should not be paid via contracts or additional stipends similar to a professional, but they should be able to capitalize on their name and success if they are in a position to do so.
The big story in the news is the situation surrounding Johnny Manziel. He apparently signed hundreds of items at several signing sessions for which he was paid. This is a big no-no per the extensive NCAA rulebook. The last time I checked, we live in the United States of America. We are one of the most capitalistic countries in the world. We promote taking advantage of opportunities presented to us. I believe the fact the NCAA denies big time college athletes this right goes against a major tenant that makes this country so great.
The arguments against paying athletes make a lot of sense. Universities cannot afford to fund an athletic department in which the athletes are making some sort of an additional stipend. Yes, the football and basketball programs make millions for some schools, but very few others turn any sort of a profit. I cannot argue against this. I just think if an athlete has the skill level to achieve national recognition and create demand, they should be able to capitalize on it. If a school is selling jerseys with their number on it, they should get a cut. While they don’t have their name on it, it is clear the fans are buying those jerseys because of the player wearing it. Going back to Manziel, it is obvious people desired items with his signature. There should be no restrictions on him taking advantage of this opportunity. This trickles down Brianwas able to make a few bucks off a Big Ten championship ring and was punished for it. While I don’t condone this from a team perspective, I think he should have the opportunity to do this if he desires. Many more examples can be discussed here, but I think you get the point.
Hopefully I have been clear in my delineation between payment for participation and capitalization on fame. For some athletes, the college years are the high point of their athletic careers. The NCAA regulations do not allow them to capitalize on their fame, which can be very fleeting. I believe this is at odds with fundamental values of this country and should be changed.
Michael: You make some good points, Brian. I’m glad you draw a distinction between paying athletes as opposed to letting the players capitalize on their achievements. You are against the universities flat out paying them, but would support the latter. This is, in my mind, a lesser evil, but I’m afraid even that system could be unfairly manipulated. For example, let’s say a certain university (Oregon) has a strong tie to Nike, and Nike agrees to make loads of jerseys for a player to help that school recruit young athletes with the promise of making more money through jersey sales than he could elsewhere. Or, a university with power and rich boosters that could guarantee the purchasing of jerseys and selling of autographs.
Yes, this is the United States of America, land of opportunity. But unless you want college athletics to turn into which universities can flex their monetary powers to entice the greatest student athletes, let’s allow the athlete the opportunity to capitalize on their college success after their collegiate career.
Brian: Both the initial and rebuttal argument seems to give the feel that boosters don’t have a tremendous influence on recruiting, which is fundamentally flawed. Yes, Oregon does have strong ties with Nike because Phil Knight is an alumnus. If it were not for Oregon’s good fortune in having such a famous, prestigious, and most importantly, RICH alumnus, that program would not be anywhere near the national spotlight. Knight donates tens of millions of dollars a year to the university, much of that to aid the athletic department. Just look at their jerseys! I read Knight paid entirely for a new athlete tutoring center (estimated cost: $41.7 million). Most recently, he paid for a $68 million football performance center. Their new basketball stadium is called Michael Knight Arena, named after his son. Similar things go on at many major universities, which they use as a recruiting tool to attract the best athletes.
I don’t believe letting players capitalize on their success outside of the playing field will influence the recruiting situation any more than what boosters already do. No matter what way you slice it, there just is not parity in the recruiting scene. At least if the NCAA loosens the reigns a bit, players like Jason White, Eric Crouch, and Danny Wuerffel might be able to make a few bucks on the fame generated during their most successful athletic years.
