Paying NCAA athletes

I used to be a firm believer that NCAA athletes should be paid considering the amount of money they make the coaches, teams, and the NCAA as they are the ones everyone is paying to watch. However, I didn't think every athlete should be paid, it should only be athletes on teams that actually make the school money which would probably just be the football and men's basketball teams. As we learned more deeply about the topic though, I changed my mind because they would no longer be student-athletes, they would be paid athletes who attend college which becomes their job.

This would create many issues on the team in terms of dynamics between the players as well as the players and the coaches. Players who weren't performing would not get benched, they would be fired and as Mr. Strewart brought up, players who were injured while playing could sue. When considering student-athletes, we think of the fact that they can get scholarships but in reality, there aren't that many scholarships to be handed out and sometimes they only cover half tuition which can leave a large chunk of tuition to pay. However, along with scholarships, the athletes get gear, hotels, planes, clothes, food, and books paid for by the team. 

 I think the last thing to consider when thinking about paying athletes is the fact that some athletes generate more money than others but does that mean that they would get paid more, or would they all get paid an equal amount? The players are putting in the same amount of time with practices and games but some are simply better than others and when someone gets injured, would they get paid?

 In the end, I don't think that college athletes should get paid because they are not professional athletes and this isn't their job. Although they are putting in a lot of time and effort, it would ruin part of the sport because it would distract from the playing and it would get incredibly complicated when deciding who gets how much and so on. In the long run, it would turn into a pre-NBA and it is still just college sports. 

Comments

  1. AnonymousApril 22, 2019 at 8:42 PM

    Great post! I also think it is important to consider if ALL NCAA athletes should be paid, or only those who play at Division 1 schools. And then you could bring up the fact that even though an athlete is good enough to play at a Division 1 school, what if they choose to go to a D3 institution? Finally, there is as you mentioned the argument that NCAA athletes are in a sense "paid" through the scholarships the institution hands them. But what about Division 3 athletics? I believe that at D3 schools, the institutions aren't even allowed to give out scholarships to their student athletes, so in a sense maybe they should be the ones getting paid by the NCAA instead of the D1 athletes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousApril 22, 2019 at 10:51 PM

    Nice post Lisa! In my opinion, a good compromise would be to pay NCAA athletes a portion of all the revenue that is earned OFF the court by these players. This would include things such as jersey sales and other memorabilia that are specific to that player. This way, these athletes wouldn't be payed an "employee's salary" but could still earn some of the money that they help the NCAA and their colleges make.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousApril 26, 2019 at 3:42 AM

    Great post. There is for sure pros and cons to paying NCAA athletes. These athletes are able to obtain their education at very elite universities essentially free and like you mentioned they are getting their expenses paid for. I believe that NCAA athletes should not get paid as the NCAA would start to become its actual business of its own if they would allow college teams to bid for players. The NCAA does a great job creating a competitive playing field which helps potential professional bound players be ready for the next stage.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Cost of Inelastic Goods

Image
Many goods that are inelastic in terms of demand are ones that are essential or, in other words, necessary to one's self. There are several examples: basic foods, gasoline, or even medicine. I was interested in how producers can manipulate the prices of these goods and how the total revenue can change over time because those goods are inelastic. The first example I thought of was insulin. Considered inelastic because, without it, those who are diabetic might physically suffer, I looked at the price trends in the past couple of years. Just as I predicted, the price has been rising dramatically in the past decade or so as producers are taking advantage of the consumers' essential need for this good. There are about 7.4 million Americans that use insulin and many struggle to pay the costs of this increasingly expensive drug. So, while rising prices benefit insulin manufacturers, those same prices come at a serious cost for patients as the demand for insulin is inelastic. Other...
Read more

The Economics and Psychology of Gambling

Image
As gambling around the world continues to increase, governments are starting to see these often self-destructive habits as a way to get money from their residents. Gambling has been seen as immoral and manipulative on the part of casinos, as well as pitiful on the parts of the people that gamble all their money away. It is seen as immoral and a “lazy way” to make money that isn’t even assured to get you anything. So what keeps bringing people back to the card table or slot machine? There are many theories about why someone would continuously gamble any money that they make to the point of landing themselves in debt. In many cases, the gamiling becomes an addiction, though many professionals have reservations on calling it that, that gets increasingly hard to kick. It is irrational for someone to continuously lose money and keep going back only to lose more. Or is it? The utility that some get out of gambling may feel like spending the money is worth it. As far as recreational ...
Read more

The Hidden Monopolies of the World

 Monopolies are all around us in the world, and not all of them are  obvious on the surface level like Google and Facebook. For example, you might be searching for hotel rooms and browse multiple "competing" sites like Travelocity, Trivago, or Hotel.com. What you most likely do not know however, is that all three websites are actually all owned by the same company; Expedia group. This illusion of free choice is used to hide the fact that Expedia essentially hold a monopoly over the industry and all hotel bookings actually go through them. These fake competitors which are all owned by Expedia Group controls 75% of the US online travel agency industry, Similarly, apple fans and Microsoft fans stubbornly stick to their respective brands of computers; not knowing that the laptops all come from the same Chinese manufacturer. Throughout all types of industries such as the ones listed earlier and others such as smartphones, supermarkets, beer, and even sunglasses, hidden parent co...
Read more