3 answers
savannah
Student
1
Question
Asked
3909 views
can you give me reasons why college athletes should not get paid for my debate. we are con on the idea of paying college athletes ?
we are doing a debate and i need reasons why college athletes should not get paid
Login to comment
3 answers
Dr H
Dr. H's Research
1464
Answers
Australia
Updated
Dr’s Answer
Hey Savannah,
Firstly you should know that college sports were founded on the principle of amateurism—athletes play for the love of the game, and not for financial reward. This system allows athletes to build their skills while maintain integrity of amtuer athletics. So, paying athletes could blur the line between college and professional sports and would cause removal of the educational focus and the passion that defines collegiate competition.
Also, now think about it, how can all these athletes be paid, 🤔it would be fairly difficult to determine how much each one should be paid. Like should the star quarterback earn more than the backup swimmer? Yep, see it would disparity create tension and resentment among athletes, thus leading to team conflict and disruption. 😱
And wow it would be a really Financial Burden on Schools! 🫡 This is because many college athletic programs do not generate enough revenue to pay athletes. Only a small number of universities make substantial profits from sports, while most rely on funding from tuition and public resources. 😌 So, paying athletes could lead to cuts in smaller sports programs, 🤔like gymnastics or track & field and you wouldn't want that 😏. So that they can afford salaries for major sports like football and basketball. Plus students who participate in demanding extracurriculars like music and theater and academic research so why should athletes be any exception? 🤔
Also let us not forget that college athletes are students first🤓. What happens when you pay a student? 🥸 Yea, Paying them would shift their primary focus from academics to profit, undermining the educational mission of universities. Maybe all of us would turn to become athletes 😅 who wouldn't want to be payed as a student. And well, Athletes might prioritize securing bigger deals over maintaining academic eligibility or earning their degree.
Also ever thought that it would be a really great Advantage for Wealthy Schools 😎🤑. Because wealthier universities with larger budgets would attract top talent by offering higher salaries, creating an uneven playing field. 🤨 So smaller schools would struggle to compete, leading to further imbalance in college athletics.
Another reason would be that by paying athletes it would open the door to complex legal and tax issues. Yea so now college athletes would need to handle taxes, contracts, and other financial obligations even tasks they may not be prepared for. 🫨 Hence without proper guidance, this could lead to exploitation or financial mismanagement.
Remember college athletes already receive substantial compensation like scholarships, housing, meal plans, and access to world-class training facilities. What else would you want more it's already good enough to shoot a goal! 😋 Because these benefits ofter total tens of thousands of dollars annually and provide a valuable education. Valuable! So there is a big argument against it and don't think it would really work out if college athletes began getting paid.
Finally let's not forget that NIL makes the ability of college athletes to earn money by profiting from their personal brand while still being considered amateurs. Under NIL rules, athletes can be compensated for things like:
Endorsements which is partnering with brands to promote products. ✅
Social Media Sponsorships so they earn money through social media posts.
Autographs and Merchandise (selling signed items or personalized gear)
Personal Appearances by getting paid for public speaking or event appearances.
Also NIL Supports the "No Pay for Play" Argument very much.
Firstly Athletes Can Already Make Money – NIL allows athletes to profit without requiring universities to pay them, addressing concerns about fairness while preserving amateurism.
Secondly it Limits Financial Burden on Schools – Athletes can earn independently without forcing schools to cut programs or increase spending.
Thirdly they Reward Star Athletes Fairly, meansTop athletes who bring in attention and revenue can capitalize on their fame without requiring a universal pay system.
Fourth NIL Keeps College Sports Competitive so schools don’t have to engage in bidding wars for players, which preserves the level playing field.
Very convenient. Anyways, hope this helped clear some things out for you Savannah, all the best! 🤗
Firstly you should know that college sports were founded on the principle of amateurism—athletes play for the love of the game, and not for financial reward. This system allows athletes to build their skills while maintain integrity of amtuer athletics. So, paying athletes could blur the line between college and professional sports and would cause removal of the educational focus and the passion that defines collegiate competition.
Also, now think about it, how can all these athletes be paid, 🤔it would be fairly difficult to determine how much each one should be paid. Like should the star quarterback earn more than the backup swimmer? Yep, see it would disparity create tension and resentment among athletes, thus leading to team conflict and disruption. 😱
And wow it would be a really Financial Burden on Schools! 🫡 This is because many college athletic programs do not generate enough revenue to pay athletes. Only a small number of universities make substantial profits from sports, while most rely on funding from tuition and public resources. 😌 So, paying athletes could lead to cuts in smaller sports programs, 🤔like gymnastics or track & field and you wouldn't want that 😏. So that they can afford salaries for major sports like football and basketball. Plus students who participate in demanding extracurriculars like music and theater and academic research so why should athletes be any exception? 🤔
Also let us not forget that college athletes are students first🤓. What happens when you pay a student? 🥸 Yea, Paying them would shift their primary focus from academics to profit, undermining the educational mission of universities. Maybe all of us would turn to become athletes 😅 who wouldn't want to be payed as a student. And well, Athletes might prioritize securing bigger deals over maintaining academic eligibility or earning their degree.
Also ever thought that it would be a really great Advantage for Wealthy Schools 😎🤑. Because wealthier universities with larger budgets would attract top talent by offering higher salaries, creating an uneven playing field. 🤨 So smaller schools would struggle to compete, leading to further imbalance in college athletics.
Another reason would be that by paying athletes it would open the door to complex legal and tax issues. Yea so now college athletes would need to handle taxes, contracts, and other financial obligations even tasks they may not be prepared for. 🫨 Hence without proper guidance, this could lead to exploitation or financial mismanagement.
Remember college athletes already receive substantial compensation like scholarships, housing, meal plans, and access to world-class training facilities. What else would you want more it's already good enough to shoot a goal! 😋 Because these benefits ofter total tens of thousands of dollars annually and provide a valuable education. Valuable! So there is a big argument against it and don't think it would really work out if college athletes began getting paid.
Finally let's not forget that NIL makes the ability of college athletes to earn money by profiting from their personal brand while still being considered amateurs. Under NIL rules, athletes can be compensated for things like:
Endorsements which is partnering with brands to promote products. ✅
Social Media Sponsorships so they earn money through social media posts.
Autographs and Merchandise (selling signed items or personalized gear)
Personal Appearances by getting paid for public speaking or event appearances.
Also NIL Supports the "No Pay for Play" Argument very much.
Firstly Athletes Can Already Make Money – NIL allows athletes to profit without requiring universities to pay them, addressing concerns about fairness while preserving amateurism.
Secondly it Limits Financial Burden on Schools – Athletes can earn independently without forcing schools to cut programs or increase spending.
Thirdly they Reward Star Athletes Fairly, meansTop athletes who bring in attention and revenue can capitalize on their fame without requiring a universal pay system.
Fourth NIL Keeps College Sports Competitive so schools don’t have to engage in bidding wars for players, which preserves the level playing field.
Very convenient. Anyways, hope this helped clear some things out for you Savannah, all the best! 🤗
Nolan Z
CPA - M&A Advisory
10
Answers
Denver, Colorado
Updated
Nolan’s Answer
This is a fun question and debate regardless of what side you are on! Here's a couple ideas I have:
Compensation without pay: A scholarship can be worth upwards of $200K+, which is quite the compensation already.
Educational focus: The primary purpose of college is to provide education. Paying athletes might shift the focus from academics to athletics.
Equality across schools: Many colleges and universities, particularly smaller ones, may not have the resources to pay athletes. The larger, wealthier schools will have a significant advantage over smaller schools
Equality across sports: Determining how to fairly compensate athletes across different sports and schools could be challenging. Revenue-generating sports like football and basketball might overshadow non-revenue sports, creating disparities among athletes.
Potential for corruption: Introducing salaries into college sports could lead to corruption, with concerns about recruitment practices, agent involvement, and other issues that could compromise the integrity of college athletics.
Compensation without pay: A scholarship can be worth upwards of $200K+, which is quite the compensation already.
Educational focus: The primary purpose of college is to provide education. Paying athletes might shift the focus from academics to athletics.
Equality across schools: Many colleges and universities, particularly smaller ones, may not have the resources to pay athletes. The larger, wealthier schools will have a significant advantage over smaller schools
Equality across sports: Determining how to fairly compensate athletes across different sports and schools could be challenging. Revenue-generating sports like football and basketball might overshadow non-revenue sports, creating disparities among athletes.
Potential for corruption: Introducing salaries into college sports could lead to corruption, with concerns about recruitment practices, agent involvement, and other issues that could compromise the integrity of college athletics.
Cary Wei
11
Answers
Updated
Cary’s Answer
Hi Savannah,
In my opinion, college athletes should not get paid because it could potential ruin the the sport they love. There would be no difference between college sports and professional sports. Secondly, how do you determine the worth of each college student in terms of what to pay each student? Students may riot based on the pay discrepancy between college students. Students would also shift their focus from their education to increasing their college value.
In my opinion, college athletes should not get paid because it could potential ruin the the sport they love. There would be no difference between college sports and professional sports. Secondly, how do you determine the worth of each college student in terms of what to pay each student? Students may riot based on the pay discrepancy between college students. Students would also shift their focus from their education to increasing their college value.