Research Blog #9: Argument and Counter-Argument

The student athlete compensation debate is one filled with arguments and counter-arguments. Among the arguments supporting compensation of student athletes, there is:

1. The idea that colleges make large revenues from ticket sales and should give the factors of production (players) part of that revenue.

2. Student athletes often do not have the time to get a job, and therefore need some source of income.

3. Companies and schools are capitalizing off of the likenesses of student athletes through merchandising and should be paying the student athletes for that right.

My paper is analytical, so I will not state whether or not I agree or disagree with any of those ideas. However, some common counter-arguments are:

1. The NCAA operates on the principle of "amateurism" which is maintained through strict guidelines that prohibit athlete salaries, among other rules.

2. Student athletes are students first, and they are receiving a free education. Therefore, a salary is unneeded.

3. The majority of colleges' athletic programs generally either break-even or operate at a financial deficit and do not truly profit off of student athletes.

In general, most of the literature I have used in my bibliography deals with the idea of amateurism and the use of merchandising by schools.

Research Blog #8: Interview

For my interview, I chose to pick the brain of a Rutgers track runner and good friend of mine, Adam Bergo. During the interview, I simply asked his opinion of the student athlete compensation debate and whether or not he believes division I athletes should be paid. Adam stated, "I don't believe that student athletes should receive a salary but greater compensation besides scholarship is needed. I believe universities and the NCAA should put together an annual bonus plan that awards the student athletes for their accomplishents because the pay and bonus is merit and performance based to keep the student-athletes at bay." I then brought attention to the video game licensing debate, and asked his opinion on the matter of schools selling the likenesses of their players for profit. He said he definitely thinks this is wrong because the players do not get paid. At the same time, he said he still approves initial idea of putting that revenue into a collective fund.

I chose Adam because I was interested in the opinion of a Rutgers athlete. At the same time, he is not a football or basketball player so I found him free of bias, which was a plus.

Research Blog #7: My Case

The point of my research is to present the arguments and possible causes in regard to the student athlete compensation debate. While I do have an opinion on the debate, I am choosing to withdraw it from my paper and remain as unbiased as possible and completely analytic. I would like the reader to draw his own conclusions based on the information I give about all angles of the argument. Amongst the two general arguments or "cases," there is one that supports the payment of college athletes and one that does not. The case that is against the compensation of Division I student athletes bases its beliefs of the idea of a term called "amateurism." Amateurism is a principle that the NCAA has upheld since the early 20th century and is loosely defined as the responsibility for student athletes to be students first and athletes second. That means they can not make a salary, have an agent, or engage in any other activities that mimic that of a professional athlete. The counter argument to this comes in the form of the second case. This case states that college athletes are being taken advantage of due to the huge revenues the NCAA generates for itself through tournaments and bowl games, not to mention ticket sales, video game licensing, and apparel (much of which uses the players' likenesses and names). Supporters of this case say that the NCAA has abandoned the idea of amateurism long ago, but keeps it as a principle so that they do not have to pay their athletes. While these two cases may be straight to the point, there also happens to be many other views on this debate that were discovered after some research and will be outlined in my final paper. For more information on these two arguments, I will post a couple articles that I used in my paper below.

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-ncaa-athletes-be-paid/college-athletes-are-already-paid-with-their-education

http://thesportjournal.org/article/ncaa-division-i-athletics-amateurism-and-exploitation

Research Blog #6: Visual

In this image found on the internet, we see a powerful display which supports those in favor of paying student athletes. It is significant because it shows the combined salary in 2011 of top 15 highest-paid coaches in college football to be 53.4 million dollars while the combined salaries of the 13,877 Division I football players to be nothing. This is startling data because colleges clearly do not view the idea of coaching as falling under the sanctity of amateurism. Also, it is usually not the likenesses and names of the coaches used for apparel and video game sales, which begs the question as to whether or not the student athletes are getting taken advantage of.