Practical argument: A text and anthology - Laurie G. Kirszner, Stephen R. Mandell 2019
Debate: Should college athletes be paid?
Debates, casebooks, and classic arguments
Before the middle of the nineteenth century, organized and school-sponsored sports played only a small role in college life. Modern collegiate athletics emerged, in part, from the disorganized and often violent intramural, rugby-like sports that students played on their own. To channel and manage these brutal contests, institutions decided to organize them in the interests of safety, physical fitness, and—as teams began representing colleges in competition against one another—school pride. College football led the way: the first intercollegiate game, between Rutgers University and Princeton University, took place on November 6, 1869. Baseball, basketball, and other sports followed suit. In the decades since, the rules and regulations of these games have changed greatly. The role of athletics in the contemporary university—and in American life—has changed greatly as well.
Today, college sports are a billion dollar industry. For example, in 2018, ESPN paid $7.3 billion to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for the rights to televise the college football playoffs. Likewise, CBS paid the NCAA $8.8 billion to broadcast the “March Madness” college basketball tournament. However, this business goes well beyond media contracts. In fact, a state’s highest-paid public employee is likely to be a football or basketball coach at a public university. Throughout the country, the money flows in countless directions from what amounts to an enormous entertainment industry, yet the players—the athletes who provide the actual entertainment on the field or court—retain amateur status. Not only do many of them spend twenty to forty unpaid hours a week practicing or playing (often at great physical risk), but they are barred from earning any compensation from their names or images or from product endorsements. Some see this situation as unfair, exploitative, or even immoral, arguing that players should be compensated in some way (beyond scholarships). Others claim that amateurism protects the integrity of college sports, that players are already well compensated with scholarships, and that paying athletes will only lead colleges and universities to become more mercenary and avaricious than they already are.
The following essays provide two contrasting viewpoints on the issue. For the writers of “Point: Colleges and Universities Should Provide Student-Athletes with Additional Compensation beyond Tuition, Room, and Board,” college sports are unfairly “built on the backs of unpaid 20-year-olds who work full time.” According to the writers of “Counterpoint: Colleges and Universities Have No Obligation to Provide Student-Athletes with Additional Compensation beyond Tuition, Room, and Board,” however, students need to remain students, not employees.
POINT: COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES SHOULD PROVIDE STUDENT-ATHLETES WITH ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION BEYOND TUITION, ROOM, AND BOARD
RANDY BERTOLAS, JAYME KREJCI, AND ALIX STANLEY
This essay appeared as part of a point-counterpoint debate in International Social Science Review in early 2018.
There are few industries in which employees are required to work up to twenty hours per week (in addition to the expected academic workload of a student), with only one day off—which sometimes is spent on a bus traveling to the next job site—all for no pay. Student-athletes raise money for their institutions, provide subsidized entertainment and inspiration for the student body, and supply colleges and universities with countless forms of promotional material, all without being paid. True, some athletes are fortunate enough to earn scholarships, but these awards are rarely the full-ride dream. If institutions are asking student-athletes to commit considerable time and effort to a sport from which the institution earns money and publicity, then the performers need to be compensated for their labor.
“The NCAA has strict ’countability’ hours limiting the amount of time student-athletes can spend in athletic-related endeavors.”
The NCAA has strict “countability” hours limiting the amount of time student-athletes can spend in athletic-related endeavors.1 Theoretically a student-athlete (with the exception of football players) cannot be engaged in athletic-related activities for more than twenty hours per week while in season. These twenty hours do not, however, include travel time, time spent in the training room, time spent training alone, “volunteer” activities in which players represent the team with or without a coach present, community service, or fund-raising activities. Interestingly, though athletes are limited to a maximum of four hours per day in athletic-related events, game day counts for only three hours no matter how much time is actually occupied by the athletic activity. For all of this time commitment, a student-athlete may or may not be compensated by a scholarship.
In a 2011 survey conducted by the NCAA, baseball players reported spending an average of 42.1 hours per week involved in athletic-related events while in season.2 That amount of time in almost any field of employment would be considered a full-time job. Few non-athlete college students work a full-time job on top of classes. University faculty members and administrators usually recommend that undergraduate students work no more than ten to fifteen hours per week if they are carrying a full course load so as to leave enough time for their studies.3 Among athletes, not everyone on the team has a full-ride scholarship, hence they are taking on a recommended level of work but without monetary gain. On top of tuition, room, and board, student-athletes also need hygiene products, clothing, gas, and other incidentals—all things that require money and for which scholarships can rarely be used.
In addition to barring student-athletes from being paid a salary, NCAA bylaws prohibit an athlete receiving compensation from any form of name recognition, or using their image or likeness.4 By way of example, for student-athletes majoring in exercise science, college is the perfect time to acquire experience in their field while supporting themselves by working as a personal trainer. NCAA bylaws, however, deem it impermissible for student-athletes to endorse, or allow their name and/or image to be used for the purposes of promoting an event or endorsing a commercial product. This means student-athletes are unable to advertise their services or the services of their employers. The NCAA also closely regulates how student-athletes are paid by outside employers, requiring that they are paid at a rate comparable to their skills and experience in the field.5
Beyond the employment restrictions and time constraints, athletes who do manage to find work—even part-time—often face difficulty finding jobs that fit with their schedules. Employers want employees with dependable schedules. The last thing an employer wants to hear is that an employee might be gone for two weeks of post-season competition, but they will not know until the Thursday before a Friday shift. Also, student-athletes are not able to work the same hours as their non-athlete counterparts due to the time commitments involved in playing sports. A student-athlete who might be able to work ten hours a week is not likely to obtain a job when a student with a regular schedule can work twenty-five.
Student-athletes should be paid for the time they spend in their sports. They cannot use their own name to make money, are required to meet the terms of a contract which often includes much more than twenty hours of athletic-related activity per week, and are expected to balance class, homework, and athletics with no opportunity to earn necessary outside income. In any other industry, this practice would be illegal. However, when it comes to college football or March Madness—multimillion dollar industries—it is just deemed college athletics, built on the backs of unpaid twenty-year-olds who work full time and are expected to say thank-you for the privilege.
READING ARGUMENTS
1. According to the writers, what benefits do student-athletes provide to their colleges and universities?
2. Where is the thesis of this essay located? Restate it in your own words.
3. NCAA rules state that student-athletes (with the exception of football players) “cannot be engaged in athletic-related activities for more than twenty hours per week while in season” (para. 2). According to the writers, what are the problems with this policy?
4. If student-athletes seek paid employment, what restrictions do they face?
5. In what sense is this essay a definition argument? Could it be seen as a proposal argument?
COUNTERPOINT: COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE STUDENT-ATHLETES WITH ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION BEYOND TUITION, ROOM, AND BOARD
RANDY BERTOLAS, JAYME KREJCI, AND ALIX STANLEY
This essay appeared as part of a point-counterpoint debate in International Social Science Review in early 2018.
Allowing college athletes to receive salaries for their participation on sports teams would be the demise of college athletics as we know it. Salaries would essentially take the “student” out of “student-athlete” and shift college programs to a business model where athletes are employees first, demoting the importance of academics. Not allowing salaries for athletes upholds the integrity and student accountability of intercollegiate competition.
Allowing college athletes to receive a paycheck for their talents would be fiscally unfeasible for a majority of higher education institutions. Nationwide, schools are already struggling to support their current athletic programs. In 2015, The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Huffington Post published an article revealing that, in order to continue financing their sports programs U.S. public universities had raised $10.3 billion over a five-year period, primarily by increasing student fees.1
In reality, the majority of college sports teams are not bringing in much revenue. Division I men’s football and basketball teams are the main sources of income for athletic programs, and not all D-I programs turn a profit. Since it is primarily these two sports that generate any revenue for sports programs, the argument could be made that it would only be feasible to pay football and basketball players. A system in which a college basketball player is earning a much higher paycheck than a less profitable athlete in another sport, however, would ultimately lead to a sense of income inequity and would create divisions between student-athletes. Such a system could potentially undermine equality advances achieved under Title IX as women’s sports bring in substantially less revenue. Overall campus cohesion could also be undermined, as regular students graduating today with unprecedented high student loan debt might begin to question their schools spending so much on athletes while charging other students high tuition.
“College scholarships are far more valuable for young athletes than either they or the public realize.”
Student-athletes do provide benefits to their campuses, society, and the sports entertainment industry, but most college athletes are far less valued within the economic market than what they self-estimate. NCAA survey researchers found that three-quarters of Division I basketball players, half of players in Division II, and one-quarter of those in Division III predict that they will be drafted into the NBA.2 The reality is that only about 1 percent of all college athletes will ever play professionally. Student-athletes benefit much more by being eligible for scholarships and stipends rather than taxable, yearly salaries. Only professional athletes are the recipients of lucrative, high-paying contracts. By comparison, minor league baseball players are awarded a meager $13,000 per year base salary, with minor league basketball players not earning much more.
In the vast majority of cases, college scholarships are far more valuable for young athletes than either they or the public realize. It is not unheard of for Division I athletes to be granted full-tuition scholarships, room and board, food and travel stipends, and countless extra opportunities. Student-athletes coming from low-income homes are still eligible for Pell Grants.3 Student-athletes also benefit by having unlimited access to the best facilities, top strength and fitness programs, and the use of athletic trainers and sports medicine specialists. Moreover, while being NCAA athletes, they are also allowed to accept funding from the U.S. Olympic Committee,4 which can be helpful to student-athletes in sports such as track and field and swimming, who may not be as likely to receive scholarships. Finally, a majority of student-athletes graduate college with little to no debt and a prestigious college degree in hand to aid in their career pursuits.
If colleges were mandated to pay student-athletes, these schools would be much more likely to simply cut athletic programs leading to fewer collegiate teams, fewer scholarships, and fewer opportunities for student-athletes. To be sure, this logic held true when in 1972 Title IX called for equitable opportunities for women and men to participate in sports, leading to increased costs associated with ensuring equal access to equipment and practice time. Over 400 already-struggling athletic teams were eliminated due to a lack of equal funding.5
Clearly, college athletes already benefit immensely by being eligible for non-taxable scholarships (the tuition portion of scholarships is tax free, however scholarships for room and board are taxable) worth far more than student-athletes’ average market value. Additionally, student-athletes are rewarded with some of the best training and facilities, and are given opportunities for exposure to professional leagues. It must be remembered that college athletes are primarily students, not employees.
READING ARGUMENTS
1. According to the writers, paying athletes would be “fiscally unfeasible” (para. 2) for most colleges and universities. Why? How do they support this claim?
2. What percentage of college athletes will ever play professionally? Why is this number significant in the context of the writers’ argument—and, more generally, in the context of this debate?
3. In the first paragraph, the writers claim that keeping student-athletes unpaid “upholds the integrity and student accountability of intercollegiate competition.” What do you think they mean here by “integrity” and “student accountability”? Does their evidence and their argument support this opening claim convincingly? Explain.
4. In what respects is this essay a cause-and-effect argument? In what sense is it an evaluation argument?
AT ISSUE: SHOULD COLLEGE ATHLETES BE PAID?
1. In the second essay, the writers claim, “It is not unheard of for Division I athletes to be granted full-tuition scholarships, room and board, food and travel stipends, and countless extra opportunities” (para. 5). Do these benefits seem like compensation enough? How might the writers of the first essay respond to this information?
2. According to the writers of the counterpoint essay, paying student-athletes would undermine “campus cohesion” (3) not just among athletes, but among all students. Do you agree? Would you question the schools’ compensating athletes while other students struggle with high tuition costs and student loans?
3. Neither of these essays incorporates the views or voices of actual student-athletes. Would including such sources strengthen either (or both) of the arguments? If so, how? If not, why not?
WRITING ARGUMENTS: SHOULD COLLEGE ATHLETES BE PAID?
Write an essay that takes a position on whether college athletes should receive a salary or other form of financial compensation for their work, time, and risks.