Argument Essay on Compensation for College Athletes
Abstract
<h2>Contextual Background and Evolution of the Debate on College Athlete Compensation</h2> <p>Student Name</p> <p>Instructor’s Name</p> <p>Course</p> <p>Date</p> <p>Over the years, compensation for college athletes has been a bigger issue, attracting all manner of arguments, with some believing that they should be paid while others believe they should not be paid. Some consider college athletes as students taken care of by their respective schools, while others consider them to be no different from other players, including footballers and basketball players. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which was founded in 1906, has controlled intercollegiate athletics and imposed a prohibition against paying student athletes (Maryville Online, 1). Midway through the 20th century, soccer, basketball, and a few other collegiate sports started to bring in huge sums of money for many colleges, despite the NCAA's continuous ban on athlete payments. The NCAA argued that the prohibition was required to preserve amateurism and differentiate "student athletes" from professionals. The Supreme Court's decision in NCAA v. Alston, et al. on June 21, 2021, partially addressed the issue of whether collegiate athletes should be compensated (Maryville Online, 1). The judgment upheld a lower court's finding prohibiting the NCAA from implementing its regulations limiting the amount of money that collegiate players may be paid.</p> <p>As time goes by, many arguments continue to arise, with some parties supporting college athletes’ payment while others oppose it. As a result, different articles have been published on this subject, covering diverse aspects of the subject matter. An example is an article entitled “Athlete’s New Day” by Paul Maxk, arguing that college athletes should be compensated. Another article with a different approach is “College Students Should Not Be Paid” by Warren Hartenstine, arguing against Paul Maxk’s stand. Laws permitting this compensation have been passed in a number of states. When creating and executing their own regulations on NIL payment for college athletes, higher education institutions in those states must comply with these new statutes. Sports participation has numerous advantages for students. It aids in the development of other abilities that benefit students in both their professional and personal lives, such as increased focus and motivation (Maryville Online, 3). Most college athletes are content to earn a partial or full scholarship that supports their education and other educational costs as their only form of payment for participating in sports because the overwhelming majority of them are unlikely to become professional athletes. Division I soccer, baseball, basketball, and other games participants bring in money for their institutions as well as for outside parties, including media and video game firms (Maryville Online, 4). Many of these college athletes feel it is unfair for companies and institutions to benefit from their labor and abilities without also participating in the returns. In addition, they emphasize the physical risk and significant time and effort commitment involved in participating in sports.</p> <h2>Comparative Evaluation of Arguments Supporting and Opposing Athlete Compensation</h2> <p>Additionally, as different views on this subject continue to ensue, Maxk and Hartenstine make comparable arguments in terms of the claims the authors make, how they support them, and what warrants or assumptions underlie their support, their choice of language, types of examples, and application of logic on this subject. Maxk makes the claim that college students who engage in athletics should be compensated whenever they get involved in a sport match. He introduces his article by clearly stating his stand on this matter and how the guidelines of the National Collegiate Athletic Association are starting to crack. The arguments are based on the prohibition law that the organization had made, hindering higher education institutions from paying their athletes. Proposals to pay college athletes have grown in prominence over the past few years. According to a 2021 Morning Consult survey, 61% of individuals endorse permitting student athletes to earn money through promotions, while 62% of adults feel players should be able to profit from the use of their appearance in licensed merchandise, including uniforms or video games (Hess, 1). NCAA athletes have been able to earn money from their NIL starting in 2021 because of the new laws that went into place in states including Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, New Mexico, Florida, and Texas. The new NCAA guidance permits learners to take part in NIL events despite the lack of federal legislation, as long as they are in accordance with the law of the state where the college is situated, and permits students from states without NIL laws to do so without violating NCAA regulations (Hess, 2). Paul Maxk gives his arguments a detailed introduction, which significantly supports the weight of his sentiments on this matter. His statements show logic and believable facts, suggesting that it is not logically correct for learning institutions and other organizations to benefit from the efforts of the students.</p> <p>On the other hand, Hartenstine believes that no single college athlete who engages in sports should receive any payment or compensation. The author introduces his arguments by derailing and exposing Maxk’s arguments as a demonstration of a lack of knowledge and thorough research on this subject matter. He goes ahead to support his argument with reference to graduation success data of students who received scholarships in the category of college athletes. According to Hartenstine, the percentage of those students who have graduated from scholarship programs has been increasing over the years. Student athletes make up a minor portion of "special admits." Yet, these percentages demonstrate the effectiveness of criteria that point to a high likelihood of success, as well as the teaching programs that are present in today's schools, much like the ones in place for many highly qualified non-athletes who are admitted to every college. Unlike Maxk, Hartenstine does not make any reference to NCAA guidelines and regulations in the introduction of his arguments. The author uses convincing language so that people can believe that it is not necessary to pay college athletes since they already have the scholarship benefit. Also, the author’s sentiments seem logical, but they do not substantiate why college athletes should not be paid when there are profits attached to the sports or games in which they participate.</p> <h2>Use of Evidence and Logical Reasoning in Supporting Compensation Claims</h2> <p>While making his arguments clear on why college athletes should be paid, Maxk introduces coaches into the discussion and notes that the enormous pay disparity between players and coaches is causing resentment. He gives an example of how coaches are paid in relation to what college athletes receive to show the disparity in compensation. According to Maxk, any head coach of football at a large university is unlikely to make less than $500,000 per year in basic pay. However, tuition and fees, housing and board, and books only serve as the primary form of compensation for college football players. They do not receive money to spend. These differences were making the players unhappy, and a protest movement had started. In the current state of affairs, athletes put in a full working week of competitions, practices, conferences, workouts, and travel. There is little time or interest left for schoolwork. This example offers significant support to Maxk’s claim and demonstrates the reality of why college athletes should be paid.</p> <h2>Critical Analysis of Counterarguments Against Athlete Compensation</h2> <p>On the contrary, Hartenstine claims that most college sportsmen are only interested in winning matches and securing opportunities to participate further. According to him, a majority of college players are not aware of their coaches’ earnings; therefore, they do not see any disparity between them and their coaches. He adds that even those who know their coaches’ salaries perceive them as investments in their success as players. Hartenstine gives an example of Mr. Maxk, who had received a scholarship that provided everything, along with fifteen dollars as laundry money, which has remained the case for many years. This suggests that college players should concentrate more on playing for their schools and academic work rather than payments. The example is appropriate, and the author employs it logically while supporting his arguments. However, it assumes that current college athletes will be satisfied with minimal or no financial compensation.</p> <h2>Synthesis of Competing Perspectives and Implications for Policy and Practice</h2> <p>In conclusion, college athlete compensation has been a serious issue over the years, particularly after the NCAA prohibited any payment to them. However, this stance was challenged by a court ruling that differed with the NCAA. As a result, many arguments have emerged, with some supporting payment and others opposing it. Maxk and Hartenstine are examples of individuals who have taken positions on this matter, with the former supporting payment and the latter opposing it. They make clear claims with supporting evidence and logic. The examples they use can be substantiated and support their arguments, and both employ convincing language in presenting their perspectives.</p> <h2>Reference List</h2> <p>Hess, A. J. (2021). Here's how college athletes can now make money, according to the NCAA's new policy. CNBC. www.cnbc.com/2021/07/01/how-college-athletes-can-make-money-according-to-new-ncaa-nil-policy.html</p> <p>Maryville Online. (2022). Should college athletes be paid? Reasons why or why not. online.maryville.edu/blog/should-college-athletes-be-paid/</p>