As the College Football season gets under way it is that time of year to ponder the question "should college football athletes be paid by the schools they play for?" It is a question that inevitably comes up year after year. This year it was the Big Ten proposing a system for the schools in the Big Ten to be able to pay their players. Not much has come of it and it most likely won't be passed any time soon. If one set of schools started paying their players then every other school would instantly be put at a disadvantage and forced to follow suit and pay their players as well. But for a moment lets actually consider the question. These players are making a pretty good sized revenue for their respective institutions. Through ticket sales, television channel deals, and various other souvenir sales a player draws in more than the cost of his tuition and other school expenses. These players are putting their bodies on the line and many of them won't be playing beyond the college level leaving many without necessary relevant experiences needed to land a job beyond college. On the other side of the argument though these players are being given the opportunity to get a degree from some of the most prestigious schools in the nation and its their fault if they aren't taking advantage of their position. Many of the athletes wouldn't be attending the same schools they reside at now if it were not for the sports scholarships and admissions they receive. There are many more factors that come into effect when discussing whether college athletes should be paid to play, I have merely brought up some of the more obvious ones. There is a lot to consider before this rule will ever change. But if it did, would it really be for the better? Should they be paid and why?
Ryan Plunkett Kin 332I sec 0767
No comments:
Post a Comment