Imagine having to put your life on the line while representing your college and end up without any appreciation. Are colleges justified not to pay their hard-working and loyal athletes who put in their blood, sweat, and tears to represent them? The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a nonprofit organization mandated to regulate student-athlete in higher education institutions. The NCAA prohibits non-school-affiliated sources from compensating the student-athletes. In making the rules more stringent, colleges that break these regulations are subject to punishments in suspensions, fines, and forfeiture of games. However, these laws prohibiting students from receiving pay are not only arbitrary but also unfair. As a fellow college student, I have seen the burden that college-athletes undergo due to financial constraints. In the speech, I will focus on four main points. First, failing to pay college student is unfair and unethical. Secondly, the guidelines by the NCAA are hypocritical and contradictory. Thirdly, the students are exploited for their abilities and lastly, the pressure to perform on the pitch and in class warrant the pay. College students should receive pay for their hard work, dedication, and the risky environment in which they operate. Failure to pay college-athletes is unfair, hypocritical, arbitrary, and exploitative for the students.
Failure to pay the college athletes is not only unfair but also unethical. In 2014, the University of Connecticut's men's basketball team reached the final. The AT&T stadium was packed to capacity with close to 79,000 spectators who paid an average of $500 to watch a series of four games. Media, particularly CBC, injected about $800 million annually to get the rights of airing the NCAA tournament (Thacker, 2017). Despite the massive investment made by the media and sponsors, student colleges get nothing from these events. None of the amount gathered from the gate collection is also used to pay these athletes. As illustrated by Thacker (2017), "Many college athletes are thrust into the national spotlight, while their universities reap the financial rewards of the players’ athletic talents” (183). Many people would consider this unfair and unethical practice, given that the leading acts in investment are not appreciated for their talents.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The NCAA guidelines to prevent college athletes from receiving pay are hypocritical and contradictory. According to the organization, student-athletes should be prohibited from receiving the much-needed pay to maintain the intercollegiate competition's integrity. The organization argues that these students have already received scholarships and educational materials and, therefore, do not need any further compensation (Zema, 2018). However, students in other extra-curricular activities, such as acting, are qualified to receive pay. Actors have several similarities with their student-athlete counterparts. Both actors and student-athletes receive scholarships and represent the school at a competitive level. However, the actress is allowed to receive funds for her participation in various competitions, unlike the athlete. Therefore, the NCAA is hypocritical and arbitrary in the application of its regulations (Zema, 2018). If indeed the NCAA guidelines against pay served to protect the academic integrity, such laws would cut across the entire extra-curricular framework.
Failure to compensate these students amounts to the exploitation of their abilities and talents. In 2015, Duke University's men's basketball team won the 2015 NCAA championship. Data compiled by the Department of Education showed that the team generated approximately $33.7 million in revenue (Berri, 2015). The team's head coach, Mike Krzyzewski, received $6.06 million. Based on these figures, the head coach received about 17.9% of the revenue (Berri, 2015). Although the coach impacted the team's success, the students ought to have received payment for their productivity. Sports competition is inherently risky. Students expose themselves to potentially life-threatening injuries when participating in these sporting events. However, only coaches and the schools in general benefit from their hard work. Therefore, this represents a classic example of exploitation as school institutions benefit at the students' expense.
The exploitation of these learners can also be viewed from the perspective of their extreme demands. College-athletes have a similar schedule to their professional counterparts. As illustrated by the author, “Collegiate athletes endure athletic schedules like those of professional athletes" (p.184-185). The college-athletes are also required to maintain good grades in their examination. Without passing their grades, these students risk not earning their degrees. The student-athletes do not have extra time to look for a part-time job. A significant majority of them end up not being drafted into their respective national league, such as the National Football League. These students do not have the income to spend on food, rent, gas, and other essential demands at the basic level. The college institution's overexploitation means that student-athletes end up living difficult lives that could adversely affect their academic performance.
In conclusion, college students should receive compensation because failure to pay college-athletes is unfair, hypocritical, arbitrary, and exploitative. Schools and the NCAA, in general, continue to make hundreds of millions in revenue for the involvement of college athletes in various competitions. Despite the tight schedule and the pressure to pass an examination, these students receive nothing other than the traditional scholarships and academic support. The NCAA laws are also hypocritical because other co-curricular activities such as acting receive financial incentives from their work. College-athletes should challenge these guidelines in the court of law to seek clarification on the matter. More importantly, policymakers must re-evaluate their stance to allow students to benefit from the revenue collected from sporting events.
References
Berri, D. J. (2015). Paying NCAA athletes. Marq. Sports L. Rev. , 26 , 479.
Thacker, D. (2017). Amateurism vs. capitalism: A practical approach to paying college athletes. Seattle J. Soc. Just. , 16 , 183.
Zema, P. (2018). Should Student-Athletes be Paid? Sport, Ethics, and Philosophy, 1–15. doi:10.1080/17511321.2018.1465112
