College Athletes Should Be Paid

Many thanks to fire_wings for this debate. [[ Rebuttal ]]1. Unfairness/Bias My opponent claims that because there is a limited number of spots in college sports, coaches have to choose. As such the coaches will choose the best players. This is true and already exists under the status quo. Indeed only the very best athletes are chosen to play college sports at the higher (Division 1) levels; that is why college scouts exist who specifically look to find the best athletes [1]. Therefore this argument is irrelevant -- we already have a system in place that looks to reward the best athletes. Moreover, it is not unfair to reward the better athletes as I've explained in the last round.2. No EffortCon says that if we pay athletes, they will only be playing for money and therefore not be competitive. This does not make sense. If people are paid for their performance, it will likely INCREASE their competitive nature (which I explained in the last round) and have them work/compete harder in order to make more money. Paying athletes provides an incentive for more competition, not less. Con claims that student athletes are currently promoted by medals. So are professional athletes. Even the richest athletes look for the glory of winning a championship even if they are personally very rich. Similarly we have every reason to believe that college students would be equally motivated if not probably more motivated to perform better when getting paid.>> On this point under "Effort," my opponent talks about happiness and claims athletes would be unhappy if they got paid. That is a nonsensical position. First, student athletes have already been very vocal about wanting to get paid [2]. Second, if an athlete doesn't want to get paid (to retain their happiness... or whatever) they can forfeit their salary. Since Con is using the standard of happiness, we should assume that student athletes would be happier making money than not making money. 3. CostMy opponent asks how college athletes would be paid.First, let's recognize that it is NOT my burden to explain *how* they should be paid - only that they should.Nevertheless, there are a lot of ways college athletes can be paid. One popular proposal is changing antitrust laws to use a salary cap, where college programs would have a salary per sport much like in the pros (but with much smaller figures). There would be both regulated and free market principles at work in this proposal, which winds up saving the schools money. "Is offering cash compensation really that much worse than the current system, in which universities build lavish facilities and spend absurd sums on their “programs” to lure good players? Doesn’t it make more sense to give some of that money to the players? It would actually be less expensive" [3]. Another option is to give athletes the chance to make money off their names and likenesses. As it stands, players' names and likeness are used in video games and to sell jerseys, yet players are not allowed to profit off their own abilities and images. It might not cost the colleges a single penny to do this and yet athletes would have the chance to capitalize on their success. Here's another way paying athletes could help give money back to colleges: "Yahoo had a great story on Johnny Manziel and the $10 million or so in market value he left on the table at Texas A&M. That’s money that will never be claimed, and had it been available, his former manager says it could have kept him in college another year, which would have meant even more money for Texas A&M, too" [4]. I could go on - but I don't have to. Again, it is not my burden to prove how colleges should pay athletes (because I am not even arguing that colleges should pay athletes; merely that college athletes should be paid - by whomever party is relevant, i.e. ESPN or a video game producer). So with that said...[[ Conclusion ]]I will simply re-cap the arguments I've made, the vast majority of which my opponent has dropped. 1. College athletes work hard.2. They work longer hours in their sport than the average American does at their job.3. They often do not have time for additional work and struggle financially.4. College athletes have to work hard to keep up in school.5. Other people (schools, coaches, etc.) make tremendous profit off athletes...6. ...despite the fact that the athletes are the ones putting their lives and bodies on the line.7. Many college athletes have their career end before it begins; this could be their only chance to profit off their sport. 8. Scholarships are not worth as much as some collegiate athlete's talent.9. Athletes have different skill sets; it's unfair to give them the same amount of scholarship money.10. Offering pay would make college sports more competitive.11. Pro athletes are horrible with money; paying student athletes promotes fiscal responsibility. 12. Not paying athletes promotes lying and backhanded deals. 13. Many schools absolutely have the funds to pay athletes.14. A salary cap or other system could be put in place to encourage fairness.15. But either way, we can pay athletes without them being paid by the schools themselves.16. Success in college sports improves a school's notoriety and brand recognition; it's fair to pay the athletes responsible.17. It would arguably save the schools money to pay athletes in some cases.18. It would make the schools money to pay athletes in some cases (see: Manziel example). Thanks again for this debate, fire_wings. [1] http://www.nsr-inc.com...[2] http://america.aljazeera.com...[3] http://www.nytimes.com...[4] http://grantland.com...