College sports are a multibillion-dollar market in the United States. However, participants, who are student-athletes, are not paid. Even though collegiate sports appear to be at the pinnacle of popularity across the country, the status quo has remained constant. This essay seeks to explore the controversial issue of payments in college sports. It is crucial to explain the phenomenon concerning the risks of abuse and enormous financial gains for third parties. Given the lack of payment, the appreciation of college athletes’ effort and exhaustive training remains an open question. Based on the role of student-athletes in generating revenues for their colleges, the risks they take, and the principles of deontological ethics, college athletes should be paid as employees.
Since society has become concerned about the payment of college students, the debate has always been shunned based on claims that student-athlete expenses would have more adversities than benefits for both students and institutions. It is argued that athletes would be reluctant to commit to their respective colleges once they compare payments with different institutions (Gerardo 203). However, it would be ethical to appreciate students’ efforts rather than deny them charges by maintaining them. Concerns have been raised regarding the payments turning colleges into business premises, which could lead to essential programs significant downfall. Moreover, it is believed that the colleges must cut budgets from somewhere else to cater to the payments (Nilhas 5). Nevertheless, before such claims are made, it is reasonable to consider whether such individuals reflect on students’ efforts in college sports and the associated health-related risks. A wide range of threats, such as health deterioration, injuries, or even disabilities, that student-athletes face cannot be excluded from the discussion. Aside from the matters of health and safety, this population’s significant time investments into representing their educational institutions should receive enough attention from those involved in financial decision-making.
Student-athletes generate revenues for colleges whenever they participate in championship games. When this universal truth is taken into consideration, it becomes clear that colleges’ need to cut costs to pay athletes does not possess much argumentative power in the discussed debate. Concerns about payment based on implementation difficulties have also seen some argue against the move (Allison et al. 8). However, the amount should be based on the levels of resources and athletes’ success. Nowadays, it happens that colleges can be successful in sports due to their students’ hard work but still fail to pay athletes that represent their institutions. Instead of this scenario, it is reasonable to anticipate colleges to align the size of payments with their levels of success in terms of sports. In this case, colleges with the highest achievements in this regard will have greater financial rewards for their student-athletes compared to the less successful institutions. Since students need motivation and compensation, such changes to colleges’ approaches to rewarding athletes could result in the latter’s increased satisfaction, thus improving their determination to reach new heights even more.
To continue, within the frame of the paid sports participation debate and the involved institutions’ grounds for decision-making, it is possible to assume that colleges and universities should behave in manners directed by pure reason. The claims on which shunning payments are based are only consequences that do not make their actions accurate. Regarding deontological ethics, educational institutions’ efforts should relate duty to the morality of human activities (Knoester and Ridpath 400). It implies that despite the postulated consequences, morality in actions should value efforts, time, dedication, and risks for college athletes.
Despite the numerous compelling reasons why college athletes should be compensated, there are also some counterarguments to explain why they should not be paid. Those opposing monetary compensations for college players respond to these arguments by emphasizing schools’ and universities’ principal goal of offering students a satisfying academic opportunity that equips them for professional employment. Those who disagree with paying college athletes argue that given the financial strains college athletic departments face, scholarship money remains the most acceptable form of compensation for young players. Most colleges and universities spend more money on athletics than they make (Nilhas 5). Scholarships allow collegiate players to obtain a high-quality education that will enable them to earn more money in non-sporting careers. According to the opposers, paying student-athletes could challenge true competition that distinguishes collegiate and professional sports by making this population seen almost as employees that have to fulfill the management’s expectations (Corrada 187). Paying for team sports is limited to the cost of attending school, excluding a subset of students who profit from their college experience.
To sum up, considering the presented evidence, paying college athletes based on the value of their actions for the institutions seems to be a positive option. Regardless of the outcomes of paying student-athletes, it would be ethical to introduce payments based on deontological concepts and as a sign of respecting their engagement in effort-intensive and time-consuming activities. As college sports gain an apex population and transform into a multi-billion industry, payments would see the athletes get motivated for their actions.
Works Cited
Allison, Rachel, et al. “Public Opinions about Paying College Athletes and Athletes Protesting during the National Anthem: A Focus on Race/ethnicity and Political Identities.” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 2021, pp. 1-23. Web.
Corrada, Roberto L. “College Athletes in Revenue-Generating Sports as Employees: A Look into the Alt-Labor Future.” Chicago-Kent Law Review, vol. 95, 2020, pp. 187-216. Web.
Gerardo, David A. “The Blue Devil’s in the Details: How a Free Market Approach to Compensating College Athletes Would Work.” Pepperdine Law Review, vol. 46, 2018, pp. 203-276. Web.
Knoester, Chris, and David Ridpath. “Should College Athletes Be Allowed to Be Paid? A Public Opinion Analysis.” Sociology of Sport Journal, vol. 38, no. 4, 2020, pp. 399-411. Web.
Nilhas, Josef. “The Fight for Pay: How the Supreme Court Ultimately May Use Antitrust Law to Allow Student-Athletes to Be Paid.” Saint Louis University Law Journal Online, vol. 68, 2021, pp. 2‑7. Web.