It Is Broke, But Don’t Fix
It
By Daniel Seegers
You know they say if it ain’t broke don’t
fix it, but I say if it is broke but the alternative is worse, don’t fix it.
After months of researching and debating whether student athletes should be
paid, this is the line of thinking I have reached. The system is broken. Since
it is very difficult to go back and fix a broken system, we can at least ensure
we don’t make it worse. My solution, or more accurately my conclusion, is don’t
pay college athletes because it will make a broken system even worse. Honestly,
paying college athletes would never be part of the solution or part of my plan,
as they already receive tremendous benefits.
Everything
is about money, right? At least this whole discussion is certainly about money.
Then there is no better place to start then talking about the money that
colleges don’t make on their athletic programs. That’s right, I said don’t. Most
arguments for college athletes stem from the misconception that universities
are rolling in the money they make on sports. Since college athletes contribute
to this, they are entitled to a share. What nobody seems to realize, and the
media certainly doesn’t advertise, is that only 23 of 228 Division I public
universities made a profit from athletics in 2012 (Berkowitz, Upton &
Brady, 2013). Some of the programs at these universities, generally men’s
football and basketball, do make a profit, but the universities have to use
this money to support the sports that don’t. You can’t just pay the basketball
and football players either as not only would it be seen as unfair, but Title
IX would likely require that all athletes are paid. The way I see it,
universities would have two options, pay all of their athletes and find a way
to further subsidize the athletics, likely through increasing tuition, or cut these
non-
revenue sports. Essentially paying student athletes will put the burden of
the cost on regular students, who already benefit less, or other student
athletes, which would be a contradiction to the entire argument.
 |
| (Unknown, 2014) |
 |
| (Hall, 2011) |
Ignore
for a moment the previous paragraph. Lets assume that colleges are as flush
with cash as people say they are and it’s just gathering dust in the president’s
office. Maybe he goes in and counts it every once in a while,
but for the most part it just gathers dust. Considering this scenario, lets
discuss the benefits student athletes receive without being paid their share of
the dust money. In the major Division I schools, where the athletes would have
the greatest claim to their share of the profits, a full scholarship athlete
will likely receive education, room, board, and coaching and training worth
between $50,000 and $125,000 per year (Dorfman, 2013). They might not be
receiving their own chunk of the dust cash, but I’ve never met a student being
paid in benefits worth at least $50,000 a year, and I definitely haven’t met
one who complained about it. The Knight Commission found that Division I
universities with football spent $91,936 per athlete in 2010, compared to only
$13,628 per student (Peale, 2013). Athletes have access to tutoring, and gym,
training, and medical facilities reserved solely for them. On top of all this,
they get media exposure should they attempt a pro career, something that, by
the way, would be much more difficult if universities weren’t making money and
couldn’t sell the rights to the games. Advertisers spend millions for a 30
second ad during the SuperBowl, but student athletes get similar exposure for
an entire game, for free. Musicians, filmmakers, or other artists would likely
sacrifice body parts for this exposure. Finally, student athletes are treated
like royalty on
campus and have much more flexibility in class, at least my
professors seem to think so since they make it very clear on the first day of class that the only students that can skip classes
 |
| (USATSI, 2014) |
or miss tests are student athletes and the
military—understandably, since soldiers have to train to protect us and the
country, you know, hero stuff.
For
me personally, I have hammered this point home pretty well. Student athletes
are not suffering and being treated unfairly. People have argued that student
athletes are basically poor their entire time in school and they graduate
broke. Broke? What’s that? Since a large portion of students graduate in debt,
having worked their butts off doing school and holding a job, graduating broke
sounds pretty nice to me.
References
Berkowitz, S.,
Upton, J., & Brady, E. (2013). Most ncaa division i athletic
departments take subsidies. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/
Dorfman, J.
(2013). Pay college athletes? they’re already paid up to $125,000 per year. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/08/29/pay-college-athletes-theyre-already-paid-up-to-125000year/
Hall, M.
(Designer). (2011). unknown [Web Graphic]. Retrieved from
http://www.changemag.org/archives/back issues/2011/january-february
2011/game-change-full.html
Peale, C.
(2013). Athletics cost colleges, students millions. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/15/athletics-cost-colleges-students-millions/2814455/
Unknown.
(Designer). (2014). Hey ncaa! don't exploit college athletes, pay them! [Web
Photo]. Retrieved from http://waiverguy.com/2014/02/09/not-so-smart-marcus-or-was-it/
USATSI.
(Photographer). (2014). Fans could support players with more than their hands
if a crowdfunding company has its way. [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24801485/ncaa-fighting-crowdfunding-company-effort-to-pay-college-players
No comments:
Post a Comment