Recalling the Great UNC Sports Scandal

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

The Debate on College Athletes’ Compensation
California’s New Law
The Scholarship and Under-The-Table Payments
The Possibility of Other Career Paths
Opposing Viewpoint
Conclusion
References

The long-running debate over whether college athletes should be paid has received much media attention. While athletes may receive degrees, several examples illustrate that athletes’ pockets are not obtaining a quality education (Solomon, 2018). Because college players’ names, images, and abilities are exploited for tremendous monetary gain, they should be able to benefit from their sports careers in the same manner that their institutions do through endorsements.

The Debate on College Athletes’ Compensation

To explore the background around the debate, ‘Should college athletes be paid?’ it is crucial first to define the NCAA and its relationship to student-athletes. Robinson (2020) states that the NCAA, or National Collegiate Athletic Association, is a non-profit organization that functions as the collegiate athletics’ national governing body. The NCAA strictly controls collegiate student-athletes at its member schools. Student-athletes at these member institutions are expected to follow the NCAA’s academic achievement and advancement requirements while in college and participate in sports (Robinson, 2020). NCAA players are permitted to get scholarships that pay their college fees and related school expenditures; nonetheless, they have traditionally been denied further remuneration (Robinson, 2020). Hence, players could not be compensated directly for their involvement in sports, including endorsements, commercial sponsorships, or presents.

California’s New Law

One of the NCAA’s most well-known roles is controlling and limiting the amount of money available to student-athletes. Robinson (2020) claims that California Governor Gavin Newsom believes that the NCAA should not benefit from the unpaid labor of its athletes. Thus, in September 2019, he approved legislation allowing collegiate athletes in California to earn endorsement deals (Robinson, 2020). The NCAA’s immediate reaction to California’s new law was to oppose it strongly (Robinson, 2020). Nonetheless, as other states submitted similar legislation, the NCAA committed to enacting new standards in October 2019 when the board unanimously decided to enable college athletes to earn money for “their name, image, and likeness” (Dwyer, 2019, para. 1). According to NCCA board chair Michal Drake, the NCCA should welcome change to give collegiate athletes the most outstanding possible experience; the NCAA’s approach should be more flexible (Dwyer, 2019). The continuing argument regarding compensating collegiate players has resurfaced in the wake of new state laws and the NCAA’s response.

The Scholarship and Under-The-Table Payments

The debate emphasizes that some of the profits should go to the talent. Robinson (2020) mentions that the most successful schools in college sports spend only about 10 percent of their athletics income on scholarships for student-athletes. Without student-athletes, the NCAA would not generate over a billion dollars in income each year; college and university sports departments would not receive significant earnings from the NCAA (Robinson, 2020). Solomon (2018) acknowledges that under-the-table payments to players by coaches, financial advisers, and shoe companies are frequent in the sport, as evidenced by federal prosecutors’ continuing NCAA college basketball cases. Solomon (2018) adds that some athletes’ worth extends beyond their sports scholarships. Thus, it should be legal to pay college athletes for their achievements.

The Possibility of Other Career Paths

Collegiate players do not have time to pursue other career paths. A series of examinations uncovered the unpleasant reality concerning coordination between the Athletics Department and several faculty members to guarantee that players stayed eligible regardless of their academic performance (Leef, 2021). According to Ursinus College Professor Jasmine Harris, athletes do not have time for their studies (Leef, 2021). Based on her study, Division I basketball and football players dedicate three times more time each week to athletics than their schoolwork (Leef, 2021). Additionally, student-athletes academic disciplines most commonly pursued do not offer much hope for life after graduation. The NCAA’s rationale overlooks that certain degrees are significantly more valuable than others (Leef, 2021). Furthermore, athletes are commonly grouped into majors that do not prepare them for success later in life, mainly because those majors allow them to concentrate on their sport.

Opposing Viewpoint

Contrary, the most prevalent explanation for why college athletes should not be compensated is that they are already paid. According to Robinson (2020), they receive free tuition and, in certain circumstances, additional money to meet their expenditures. Nonetheless, not all NCAA athletes earn full or even partial scholarships (Robinson, 2020). Sports programs may indicate that student-athletes should treat their sport as if it were a full-time career (Robinson, 2020). This circumstance might be difficult for many student-athletes who may not have the money to pay for their school.

Conclusion

To summarize, collegiate athletes should be compensated for their abilities because they cannot fully embrace their identities as students to the same extent as their classmates. Being a student-athlete is a full-time profession, and it should be rewarded appropriately. The policy’s far-reaching consequences include the elimination of under-the-table payments to college athletes, the prospect of turning collegiate athletics professional, and the ability of players to earn depending on their talent.