{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

pay to play argument paper

pay to play argument paper - Blair Connor Blair Professor...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Blair Connor Blair Professor Kevin McKelvey English 130 11 April 2007 College Athletes Should Not Be Paid Paying college athletes, more commonly known as pay for play, is an argument as old as the NCAA itself. Sportswriters, politicians, athletes, and school presidents all have strong opinions on the issue. Believing athletic departments make enough profit to pay athletes (Wieberg 1), paying athletes would end much of the corruption in college athletics and keep athletes in school, and that players need spending money many think college athletes deserve to be paid. These arguments are persuasive, but invalid, and when examined closely, don’t hold much merit. College athletes should not be paid because of financial unrealities, corruption will not be stopped by paying athletes, consideration to all athletes, and because athletes already go to school for free. This argument only addresses Division IA college programs which constitute NCAA programs with both a men’s basketball and football team competing at the IA level. Many claim athletic departments make gigantic profits, but in reality they do not. Athletic departments do generate considerable amounts of money, but the expenses of running the department are equally high. From recruiting to scholarships and university employees (yes, head coaches are highly paid, but like any other job coaching is competitive and employers have to retain good employees) to equipment and travel expenses, athletic departments usually do not make much, if any, profit. The total revenue generated by all 121 Division IA athletic departments, schools that compete in 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Blair football and basketball at the IA level, in 2006 combined was $2,829,199,372. However, less than $200 million of the nearly $3 billion dollars is profit because of the $2,643,104,626 in total expenses (“Equity in Athletics 1). Each athletic department averaged just over $1 million dollars profit. This is not enough money to divide amongst players. Tallying the highest profit of any athletic department in 2006, $23.9 million, was the University of Georgia (Tucker 1). With the profits, Damon Evans, the athletic director, paid off existing debts and used the “unallocated funds,” as Evans calls them, to upgrade facilities (Tucker 1). Georgia or any other athletic department does not make these profits every year. Schools have to prepare for years of loss and cannot afford to not be prudent. "We are very careful in how we build budgets,’ Evans said, ‘We have a practice of zero-based budgeting, building our budget from zero every year, justifying every dollar each year." (Tucker 1) In fact, most Division 1 athletic departments lose money. In 2001 77 of 117 division 1 programs returned losses. Indiana University, which lost over $2 million dollars in 2006 is a recent example (Equity in Athletics 1). A school such as Indiana, if forced to pay athletes, would have to cut programs, going against the interest of the athletes. A prime example of a school forced to cut programs because of budgeting is
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 8

pay to play argument paper - Blair Connor Blair Professor...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online