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.
No comments:
Post a Comment