Have you ever wondered do college athletes get paid? How do they pay for all their expenses? Where does all the money from tickets sales go? Can college athletes get sponsors? If you found yourself ever wondering about these questions on college athletes? Then this article “Should College Athletes Be Allowed to Get Paid,” written by Spencer Bokat-Lindell, a writer for the New York Times in the opinion section, is for you. As I began to read the article, I noticed it was stating that college athletes should be getting paid for playing a highly viewed sport. It gave factual information to back up his argument. I have chosen this article, not only because I myself am a college athlete, but because many college athletes are being taken advantage of by their University being used for their skills and fame in order to receive more income with no pay. In this article, Spencer Bokat-Lindell, states why college athletes should be getting paid for their participation in highly viewed college sports.
Spencer Bokat-Lindell opens the article by stating that the Gov. Gavin Newsom of California signed a law allowing athletes to strike endorsement deals. Which is a move that could upend the business model of college sports that denies student athletes the ability to trade on their talent. Newsom also tweeted “colleges reap billions from student athletes but block them from earning a single dollar.”
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
He then goes on to state facts that he believes we should know. Such as “The National Collegiate Athletic Association,” the nonprofit organization that administers student athletics, made over $1 billion in revenue in 2017. Also, in which athletes themselves are compensated only in financial aid and are forbidden to be paid in exchange for the use of their name, image or likeness.
He then starts to explain on how athletes are being cheated by quoting many professional athletes and spokesman/spokeswoman. Stating their opinions on why college athletes should get paid and their standpoint on colleges using them without pay in return. He also begins to use factual information that universities with top teams can rake in nearly $20 million a year from Nike or Adidas sponsorships from athletes talents that attracts them in the first place. Brian Rosenberg, the president of Macalester College, in The New York Times stated “College basketball players are worth a lot of money, but they aren’t legally allowed to make it. So, the schools, coaches, agents and shoe companies make the money instead.” Which supports Spencer Bokat-Lindell argument on why college athletes should get paid.
California’s law breaks this prohibition, allowing students to book sponsorships, even with the help of agents. But it would also challenge the system of amateurism that has governed college sports for decades, risking N.C.A.A. fines “potentially in the tens of millions of dollars” for California schools whose athletes decide to monetize their renown, according to an analysis by the California State Assembly’s staff, and even risking their teams’ eligibility to compete.As those on opposing sides of California’s law debate how the fruits of the college sports economy ought to be distributed, others assert that the solution is simply to decommercialize the activity altogether.
Jonathan R. Cole, a professor at Columbia and author of “Toward a More Perfect University,” suggests in The Atlantic that the emphasis placed on campus athletics is “totally out of control.” In 41 states, he writes, the highest-paid public employee is not a professor or neurosurgeon, but rather a college football or basketball coach. For students, meanwhile, the difficulty of keeping up with both coursework and demanding athletic schedules has created an incentive for academic fraud. Taken together, a picture emerges of college sports as a pseudoprofessional industry that encroaches upon the mission of higher education.
One school that has provided something of a model on this front is Spelman, a historically black college for women. In 2011, Spelman learned that its N.C.A.A. division was losing three members. Rather than find another conference in which to compete at great expense, the school decided to withdraw from the N.C.A.A. and eliminate its athletics department in favor of a fitness program for all students. Beverly Daniel Tatum, then Spelman’s president, wrote in The Times in 2013: Whether it’s diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease, black women are more likely to suffer from these ailments — and die from them — at young ages. All are linked to obesity and lack of physical activity … We decided that it was more important to support our entire campus with a wellness initiative than 80 student athletes with N.C.A.A. funding.
California’s changes aren’t scheduled to take effect until 2023, leaving the N.C.A.A. ample time to mount court challenges to the law, which the organization has suggested violates the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. If the law is upheld, the N.C.A.A. will have to decide whether to penalize the schools with fines, which may or may not be legally enforceable, or even expel them.
For now, California is betting that the outsize importance of its universities within the world of college sports will make those threats impossible to carry out. “I don’t necessarily take it to heart,” Newsom said.
Stuck on your essay?
