An Analysis of the Argument on the Topic of Payment for College Athletes

As sports continue to enthrall the masses in the United States, many debates have surfaced regarding athletes. A specific argument that stands out is whether college athletes should receive payment; more specifically should players on the level of Alabama’s Derrick Henry receive some form of payment for playing.

Derrick Henry, Alabama’s six foot three, two hundred thirty-eight pound running back, is known for his unstoppable running game. He easily puts defenders on the turf as he charges for extra yards.

But, the question of whether him and other stars should be paid still stands. Derrick Henry posted some of the highest stats the NCAA has seen over his three year college career. Ted Miller writes, “Heisman Trophy-winning running back Derrick Henry became Alabama’s all-time leading rusher… Henry broke Shaun Alexander’s record of 3,565 yards, which was set in 1998” (“Derrick Henry Breaks Shaun Alexander’s Bama Rushing Record”). Also, Derrick Henry’s 3,565 yards in college compared to Marshawn Lynch’s 9,112 in the NFL seems incomparable, but career length need to be taken into account.

Derrick Henry posted 3,565 yards in just three seasons while it took Marshawn Lynch almost eight seasons to rack up 9,112 yards. When looked at from this aspect, it can be said that college superstars are almost NFL worthy. But, does pertaining the highest skills render payment?

The only thing that is really holding college athletes back from being paid is the NCAA rules. The interest in paying college athletes definitely exists. Dave Zirin, from The Nation writes, “I always say the question of whether they (college athletes) should get paid is the wrong one.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified

Proficient in: Paying College Athletes

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

I think the question is, ‘If the NCAA weren’t colluding against them, would they get paid?’ And the answer is, ‘Yes, they would” (“An Economist Explains Why College Athletes Should Be Paid”). One reason college athletes, like Derrick Henry, do not get paid is because the NCAA does not want them to. The NCAA wants the money that all the teams and athletes bring in. If the NCAA did not exist, or had little say in this matter, things may be different. Zirin continues with saying that it would be simpler with almost no systems or rules. If rules need to be made, they should be created for specific conferences. Teams should have a say in whether they want to pay players. If players are in demand in certain areas, they should receive payment to come to those programs (“An Economist Explains Why College Athletes Should Be Paid”).

Plenty of people also say that college football athletes should not be paid, even if they play on the level of Derrick Henry. Kieran McCauley says college athletes should not be paid even though they put in time and work (“College Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid”). McCauley states, “The key in my statement is they shouldn’t be paid, I didn’t say they shouldn’t be compensated. Athletic scholarships are their compensation and a fair one at that” (“College Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid”). Essentially, what McCauley is saying is that many people overlook the fact that athletes such as Derrick Henry receive full scholarships to the universities. This counts as a paycheck to them. They get something for free that other non-athletes have to pay for. Another point that McCauley brings up is the problem with the popularity of the sport the athlete plays. Should college football athletes be paid more than athletes in “non-revenue producing” sports? (“College Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid”). Even though he or she works as hard, they would not get the same popularity that Derrick Henry would.

Another point many people argue is that college sports take up so much time and effort that athletes have no time for outside jobs. Other college students have time to spare in order to maintain full or part time jobs. These jobs allow students to pay for rent, food, and textbooks. Some athletes, however, are not able to gather the funds for this. While most scholarships cover the majority of these costs, others do not. Up until recently, the NCAA prevented athletes from working at all during the school year. Craig Greenlee writes, “Full athletic scholarships pay for tuition, books, plus room and board, but not other costs. Under the new rule, athletes’ earnings may not exceed what their school calculates as “incidental expenses” for the academic year, which range from $1,200 to $2.500″ (“Student-athletes at Work”). The new legislation was recently approved for Division I teams including Derrick Henry’s Alabama Crimson Tide. The legislation seems to make perfect sense. Allowing athletes to earn enough money to cover gas, food, and any other expenses appears to be the right thing to do. However, according to Greenlee, the new legislation could have its fair share of problems. Monitoring athletes could cause athletic boards a huge problem. Board members must insure that athletes are actually doing the work and not simply receiving payment from boosters (“Student-athletes at Work”). Even after all this, it is not clear which way this argument will go. Many questions can still be asked. Should all college athletes be paid? Should it depend on the level on which those athletes play? Would this system elevate stars like Derrick Henry and abandon those such as a lowly third string quarterback on the nations worst team? What will be the deciding factor? Nothing can be said at the current moment except that it all seems to lie upon legislation from the NCAA to put this argument to rest.