In the article, “Should College Athletes Be Paid? By Kamal Walker, he utilizes logical fallacies to prove his point. At first, Walker goes into much detail upon the fact that the NCAA and several universities make a substantial amount of money at the expense of their athletes. He also mentions that these NCAA athletes are sacrificing a lot when partaking in college athletics. As stated in the article, “To begin, there is a ton of money being made by colleges and universities at the expense of these young athletes. These players sacrifice their time, their education and even their bodies for the sake of their teams” (Walker). This easily exemplifies an appeal to pity tactic. This can be seen as Walker is trying to make the reader feel bad …show more content…
He states that several college recruits are offered large amounts of money that some have never even seen before. As stated in the article, “Advocates of college athletes being paid focus on the tremendous amount of financial fraud and violations that occur each year in multiple programs. Players from humble beginnings get offered large amounts of money that they haven't seen before in their lives.” (Walker). This statement simply exemplifies the use of non sequitur. This can be seen as this statement simply just does not logically follow. There is no proof in any way that a player with a humble beginning that was offered a money bribe from a college coach, had never seen that much money before. Truthfully, this statement is simply inaccurate and there is no proof to back it up. The statement all together does not follow and is a mere assumption by the author. Every college recruit’s situation is different in a financial standpoint, therefore this statement can not be inferred as true because there is no evidence to back it up. This displays that Kamal Walker used a non sequitur tactic in this
They do not face problems of debt and tuition to the extent that the normal college student faces. Student-athletes are fairly compensated through publicity and financial benefits, and the NCAA should continue to refrain from paying them. The varying size and interest levels of universities makes it almost impossible to fairly pay all athletes. In order to avoid problems like those exhibited by Northwestern’s football team, who recently tried to unionize, all athletes would need to be paid equally. The excitement brought on by college sports is immense, and problems created due to paying athletes would only hurt the tradition and charisma that college athletics offer. In conclusion, College athletes are students and amateurs, not employees. “Remember student comes first in student-athlete”
Some feel that by not paying college athletes that college institutions are thereby exploiting their athletes free of charge, which is unfair. However, this article feels that college athletes are paid very favorably by the large amount of money they receive for schooling through scholarships. Also, since college athletes don’t pay to play or go to school they are receiving a free college degree whether or not they decide to stay in school for four years or not. With the training that they receive from professional trainers and nutritionists for a professional controlled diet they save possibly thousands within the 4 years they attend school and perform in collegiate athletics.
Tyson Hartnett of The Huffington Post once said “Even with any type of scholarship, college athletes are typically dead broke.” This quote regards a tremendous controversy that has been talked about for the past few years. He talks about whether or not college athletes should be paid for their duties. Despite the fact college athletes are not professionals, they should most certainly be paid for playing for their respective schools due to many factors. These factors include health risks and the income bring in for their colleges as well as to the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Posnanski, Joe. “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid.” Norton Sampler: Short Essays for Composition, 8th ed. Pages 584-590. 2013.
Imagine a business that brings in $60 million each year ,and the people fueling that industry receive none of the revenue(Wieberg). These same people work 40 hours in their sport every week, these “people” are college athletes. The NCAA, the governing body for major college sports, is the industry doing this to college athletes(Edelman). This is an issue of exploitation and control by large institutions over primarily poor people, the NCAA is guiding them in directions to make money for everybody while doing everything possible to keep the players out of the money. College Athletes deserve profit because they bring in large revenue into their program, the NCAA, and they invest tons of time into their sport.
Salvador, Damon. “Why College Athletes Should Not Be Paid?” 20 April 2013.Web. 18 May 2014.
In “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid,” a response to the previous argument that also appeared in the Baltimore Sun, former Penn State football player Warren Hartenstine argues that “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid.” Like Marx, Hartenstine is writing to a similar audience, but argues why student-athletes shouldn’t be paid above scholarships like professional athletes are.
“Big time athletes do get paid. They get free college tuition.”(Posnanski). College athletes not only get tuition, but they also get room, board, and meals. They also get to be coached by top coaches, train in the best training facilities, travel around the country for free, be treated by the best doctors and medicine, and have their chance in the spotlight (Posnanski). With universities constantly raising tuition prices, having free tuition is a big thing, but most, if not all, athletes waste that by focusing just on their sport. The athletes themselves probably aren’t the only ones to blame. Practices should be cut shorter to allow the students’ time to study more and actually get a college education. While you hear many athletes complaining that they don’t have personal spending money, other college students can say the same thing. While athletes are practicing, others are working to pay off tuition fees, which the athletes get free. In an interview at his trial against the NCAA Ed O’Bannon, a former basketball player from UCLA, said “I was an athlete masquerading as a student. I was there strictly to play basketball. I did basically the minimum to make sure I kept my eligibility academically so I could continue to play.” (Dahlberg). People should be going to college for what it is meant for—education, not sports. College sports are an extracurricular activity that should be
Today there are over 450,000 college athletes and the National College Athletics Association (NCAA) faces a difficult decision on whether or not college athletes should be paid. Many people believe that they should and many believe they should not. There are several benefits that college’s athletes receive for being a student athlete. Why should they receive even more benefits than their scholarship and numerous perks?
In today’s society, one of the big controversies with sports is, should student athletes be be paid a salary? Some people believe that they should be paid and others would completely disagree. Even though they technically are being paid, they really are not. The only type of way the athletes would be paid is through financial aid or if they have a job. Only their education is being paid by the school. Although some people believe that they should be paid, it would not be a good idea at all. So college athletes should not be paid at all because they are basically being paid to study and play a sport.
College athletes are undoubtedly some of the hardest working people in the world. Not only are they living the life of an average student, they also have a strenuous schedule with their specific sport. One of the most discussed topics in the world of college athletics is whether or not student-athletes should be paid money for playing sports. The people who disagree with the idea have some good arguments to make. Primarily that the athletes get to go to school for free for playing sports. Another argument is that if student-athletes were to get paid then it would ruin the amateurism of college sports. People who are against paying the athletes do not want to see the young people become focused on money. “Paying student-athletes would dramatically shift their focus away from where it should be - gaining knowledge and skills for life after college” (Lewis and Williams). This is very understandable because one of the biggest reasons college sports are so popular is because the athletes play for school pride and for bragging rights. They play because they enjoy the game, not because it is their job. Most people that disagree with the idea of paying the athletes fail to realize what really goes on behind the scenes. At most Universities around the country the bulk of the income the school receives is brought in through the athletic programs. In fact the football and basketball teams usually bring in enough money to completely pay for the rest of the athletic programs all together. To get a better understanding of how much has changed in the world of college sports a little history must be learned.
College athletes juggle busy academic and practice schedules all throughout their stressful weeks, so why shouldn't they be compensated for their time dedicated to sports? NCAA rules strictly prohibits players from being paid for all the hard work they do to protect “amateurism”, but are you really an amateur putting in over 40 hours a week between practice and other activities? Although students earn a college scholarship, that doesn’t cover living expenses, and access to a degree at the end of their career, players should be paid because schools, coaching staffs and major corporations are profiting off their free labor.
classifies Division I football players as amateurs, not professionals, student-athletes, not employees, which is how colleges get away with paying them nothing.” In a way it is not fair with the players that are who are generating most of the profit to the team and the league, but more important is the fact that they are being offered a free education.
College sports have become more popular throughout the past few years and the NCAA is doing an immense amount of money. This increase in money has caused colleges to become involved in this global debate over whether college athletes should be paid or not. Many athletes believe they should be paid for all their hard work, time, and dedication to the organization. Other people like, Kristi Dosh, believe that college athletes shouldn’t be paid because there are too many questions that haven’t been answered for them to join the opposing side. A lot of questions come up with this debate, like which athletes are going to get paid? Kristi Dosh is an author and an ESPN sports business reporter. Dosh wrote the essay, “The Problems with Paying College Athletes”, on June 9, 2011. This essay was published in Forbes which is a business magazine about sports and money. Kristi Dosh makes a somewhat convincing argument by asking a lot of questions to get her audience to realize how difficult this change is, however; she doesn’t do a very good job giving any citations or statistics to back up her statements. Ultimately, I think Dosh is convincing to her audience, but the weaknesses outweigh the strengths.
Ironically, the outcome of responding is simple. College athletes should be paid. Posnanski formed an argument of college athletes already receiving scholarships, college athletics being centered around the college, and college athletics losing integrity and fairness as a result. Posnanski’s points are flawed, and besides scholarships being valuable and students already receiving them Posnanski is flawed in thinking. College athletes bring lots of income to their schools, for them to not be able to profit off their name, or be in poverty despite bringing in money for their schools is