Order 981520: should college athletes get paid

Anthony Jackson

Amy Durkin

English 103

15APR18

Pay the Athletes

Reading "College athletes deserve to be paid" by Micheal Wilbon, Wilbon questions the National Collegiate Athletic Association(NCAA) creditable for not paying the athletes some compensation. Wilbon explains to his audience (sports fans and other athletes) that he understands there are a lot of issues that will come if the National Collegiate Athletic Association or the colleges themselves started to paying players. While some sports have more coverage than other, how would the school explain to individual sports, why they are given more money to one sport or athlete than the other. He describes it would all be about the fan base and which sport brings in the most revenue, for example, which team brings in more money the basketball team or the hockey team? Without a doubt, the basketball team will at the end of the day due to its large fan base. With that statement alone who can doubt his claim, its plain facts. At the same time, he thinks a player should be able to make their deals on the side for extra money as well. If a player can get paid to speak at an event for certain money then why not? People are quick to argue against a player, stating that the athlete should focus on school and the love of the game, but if a nonsport student wants to tutor on the side for money, no one would say a word. Athletes and nonathlete have the right to make money how they see fit. This article gives a great example of what the National Collegiate Athletic Association could do to pay the athlete or what the National Collegiate Athletic Association should allow the athletes to do on their own time, earning money.

Wilbon uses Logos appeal in his article, a reader can agree to logicalness behind his examples on how to pay the players. If the National Collegiate Athletic Association is making "$11 billion deal -- OK, it's $10.8 billion to be exact -- " with" CBS/Turner Sports for March Madness between 2011 and 2024. We're talking $11 billion for three weekends of television per year. On top of that, there's a new four-year deal with ESPN that pays the BCS $500 million" where is all the money going?(Wilbon) As a reader you can understand why Wilbon said this in his article, to give you an idea of how much money is earned off these athletes. It is ridiculous to believe that a Tuition, room, board, and books were compensation enough. While there might be programs for the athlete to use for "cover clothing purchases, emergency travel, and medical expenses" With is you can agree with Wilbon, that a player is worth a lot more. If " somebody is willing to give A.J. Green $750 or $1,000 or even $2,500 for his Georgia Bulldogs jersey, fine, good".(Wilbon)

As a well-renown professor in your college, you think you would make as much as a sports coach or more for teaching future entrepreneurs, etc. Well, think again, "The most distinguished professor at the University of Alabama won't make $5.9 million in entire tenure in Tuscaloosa; Nick Saban will make that this year."(Wilbon) How is that a sports coach is making more than a teacher? They practically do the same job, they both teach their students some lesson. Whether it be on how to grow a business in this economy or to catch a football. Why is that Saban is getting paid so much? Because the athletes are playing the sport, the coaches and winning. If the team he coaching was losing, would get he get paid the same amount? It is the athletes that performed and do the work, but the coaches are the ones receiving the benefit of the winnings. One way you can play the athletes is cut that 5.9 million dollar salary and make it 3.9 million. Then athletes can receive 2 million dollars for there hard work, which can be spread thought out the year.

National Collegiate Athletic Association gave us the excuse for not paying the athletes is "inability to distribute the funds equally." While the deal with BCS and ESPN was "based, in part, on paying more money to schools/conferences" and of that "$174 million distributed from five bowl games, 83.4 percent went to six conferences in 2011".(Wilbon) Wilbon is informing the audience in on how the National Collegiate Athletic Association is "Fairly" distributing their funds out the evening, while the five other conferences receive only 16.6 percent of the 174 million dollars. As a reader, you can get the sense is that the six conferences that winning most of the earning is because they brought in the most revenue. Who did all the work? The athletes. Who is receiving all the benefits? The college themselves.

As some people might now like the ideas or proof that Wilson has shown, people still can't the denied the facts. Wilbon uses to be on the same side with those oppose students. Stating that he thought "vehemently against paying college athletes. Tuition, room, board and books were compensation enough". Wilbon understands that it would be difficult to pay athletes but at the same time he states" the students who play for revenue-producing teams (at UConn and the University of Tennessee, this would include the women's basketball teams) on how compensated from the lucrative television/radio/Internet rights fees they make wholly possible." Wilbon demonstrates that with all the deals that National Collegiate Athletic Association is doing, there could be more for the athletes instead of saying the scholarship is enough compensation.

From the Article "College athletes deserve to be paid" I believe the Author Micheal Wilbon, did an excellent job of describing how NCAA should pay their athletes. Wilbon gives his opinion both sides of the matter and explains that the athlete should at least play some player but not all. I couldn't agree more with the example he displays and uses.

work cited page

Wilbon, Micheal."College athletes deserve to be paid". ESPN. 2011.Web