College athletes should not be paid.

First I will defend my cases, and then I will refute my opponent's cases. My opponent failed to address the fact that there are students out there making a difference in the world that aren't getting paid, possibly because of lack of clarity in my first paragraph, so I will use this time to remind him of this fact. When I said that we would be putting too much of a value on sports rather than academics, it was meant to be taken many ways. First off, it means that we are putting too much value moral-wise on sports. Some kids would see college football and basketball players making money, playing the sports that they loved, and they would decide that they wanted to go to college to get paid to play sports. This would diminish the reason that students go to college. .. to learn. What about the kids that are getting degrees in neuroscience? Kids that will go on to research cures for cancer? THEY are the ones making a difference in the world. Sports are just for fun. Why should athletes be paid, but not the people that are making strides in science and other subjects? And, because you said that being an athlete is a full time job, I'd like to point out that so is being a student in many cases. My brother goes to The University of Pittsburgh, and he has an extremely rigorous schedule, and lots of student loans. His days are packed with classes, and 4 hour chemistry labs that can last from 6 to 10 at night. He, and many of his friends, could never get a part time job to make money on the side. I believe that paying athletes who spend all their time playing sports on basis of the fact that they can't get jobs isn't fair, because their academic counterparts have the same issue and wouldn't be receiving pay. Additionally, it's putting more value on sports money-wise. I will now also be clarifying what I meant with point B. One of the reasons that con contends that student athletes should be paid is that they bring in revenue to the school. When I said that one of my teachers "brought in money," I was saying that as a result of her writing in the school newspaper, the school made revenue. I'm saying, that because a wide variety of people help the schools create revenue, would we pay every single one? It would be a difficult endeavor to track down every single person that made money for the school, but I believe it would be necessary in order to be fair to everyone. Another point in relation to athletes not being able to hold down a part time job is this. My opponent says that because a certain sport doesn't draw as much of an audience, that they shouldn't be paid as much. I say that this is extremely unfair. One of the main points my opponent uses in this debate is that athletes need the money because they will not be able to have a job because of how much time they spend in their sports. I contend that many athletes in OTHER sports that may not necessarily draw as big of an audience ALSO cannot have a part time job. Swimmers are allowed by the NCAA to practice in the pool for 20 hours each week. (1) This may not sound like that much, but I'd like to provide insight on what they actually do. Swimmers interval train, as you might know. They might do a 100 yard swim on 1:40. Because the swimming mentality is basically "work as much as you can," swimmers will do those hundred yards in times of about one minute or so. Now, even though they have been in the water for 1:40, they treat it as only having swam for 1 minute of their allotted time. This allows them to spend ridiculous amounts of time in the pool each week. And that is not even counting the time in the weight room and gym that they might have to do OUTSIDE of practicing. I contend that because swimmers are spending just as much time as other athletes playing their sport, and can also not get a part-time job, they would also have to be paid for their work. My opponent's views are not exactly the same throughout his argument. First, he says that because the athletes make revenue for the school, that they should be paid. Now, he once again states that because they cannot hold part time jobs, that they should be paid. But like I said earlier, if an athlete is making money for the school, wouldn't they also be entitled to some of the money? Regardless of whether a high school athlete has a job or not, or would want one, if they make money for the school, it is the same situation as college. I'd like to apologize for the fact that I didn't cite my source for the "90% of athletic departments lose money" fact. Most colleges do not have the money to pay their athletes because their programs do not make money. (2) Once again, I apologize for not citing this article. As you can see, the writer got his information from a "USA today story," which can be found at this link. (3) However, although I didn't cite it immediately, the information is still true. I use this next paragraph to make a statement pertaining to my opponent's paragraph where he called my $27,000 statistic into question. Although I was unable to find the original statistic in a study, I contend that it doesn't matter what the average college athlete receives. Because 90% of athletic departments lose money, it doesn't matter what Jane from Utah is getting in field hockey scholarship, because her athletic department is losing money and she wouldn't be paid anyway. All that matters is the sports that make money, mainly football, and basketball. According to the NCAA, "the average scholarship [for division I basketball] at an in-state public school is worth $15,000/year. At an out-of-state public school, it"s worth $25,000/year. And at a private school, it"s worth $35,000/year or more. " (4) This statistic is even higher than the former, and I believe this would already constitute being paid for playing your sport. Additionally, I do not see any relevance of the statistic cited at the end of the paragraph. Why does it matter what percent of all people (athletes and non-athletes) receive athletic scholarships? We are talking solely about athletes in this debate, and that statistic doesn't reflect that parameter. I have now finished defending my arguments, so I will now refute my opponent's. I'd like to once again point out that the argument that players do everything for the college is flawed. Other athletes donate lots of time and wouldn't get paid in your scenario, and the people that do make revenue for the college (men's and women's basketball, football) already do get paid in athletic scholarships. I also don't see how it would be illegal to not pay student athletes. For one, it is legal because it is currently being done. I contend that because it is an extracurricular that the students are choosing to do, that they do not need to be paid for it. It is not wage fixing because it is not a job. I would also like my opponent to clarify how an illegal boycott is being created. It is not boycotting, it is simply a rule, and a good one that should be kept. I am now done refuting my opponents arguments, and have finished defending mine. I believe that all students that are making money for their school are on scholarship, and it would be unfair to pay students based on the audience they draw, because other athletes work just as hard. Additionally, they cannot be paid on the basis that they don't have time for a job, because athletes that DON'T draw an audience don't make as much money for the school, but also cannot get a job. Therefore, I urge a vote for pro. I'd like to thank con for clearly being a worthy opponent. (1) . http://www.gocrimson.com... (2) . http://www.forbes.com... (3) . http://www.usatoday.com... (4) . http://www.nerdwallet.com...