Paul Marx and Warren Hartenstine present two contrasting arguments on whether college athletes should be paid or not. Marx highlights various disparities in earning between college players and their coaches and point at the need to pay college players. He argues that most of the players are blacks who come from poor socio-economic backgrounds and have not been involved actively in academic work (Marx 1). On his account, Hartenstine argues that college athletes should not be paid because eighty-five percent of student athletes graduate with various academic qualifications (Hartenstine 1). About sixty-seven percent of these graduates are professional and community leaders. In this regard, they should appreciate the fair allowances given to them and focus on the key academic goal for which they enroll. While I acknowledge Marx’s argument on the need to pay college athletes, I find Hartenstine’s argument more sound and logical because the core mission of college athletes is academic work. Thus, college athletes should not be paid salaries but granted scholarships to enhance their education.
Contrary to Marx’s assertion that hardly fifty percent of college football players graduate, Hartenstine reveals that the graduation rate for these players stand at fifty-nine percent. This figure is statistically higher than the data that Marx relied on. Hartenstine opines that the graduation rate for women and men are sixty-one percent and fifty-six percent. He further observed that the recent graduation rates for Division I and Division II freshmen stood at eighty-two percent and seventy-three percent respectively (Hartenstine 1). These figures reject Marx’s claim that only a few of these players graduate. Therefore, it is illogical to allude that the absence of pay for these graduates is the reason some of them lack interest in school work. The main focus for college athletes should be school work because virtually all students enroll in school to become community leaders and professionals. Offering pay for athletes because of their participation sports may negate the major goal for which they are in school.
The idea of not paying athletes is further emphasized in Yankah’s article. The author argues that paying college athletes would be a grave mistake because it would fail to underscore the centrality of sports as part of education. Sports offer an integral part of a comprehensive education system. In most cases, student athletes have dedicated much of their time in training for competition without expecting monetary rewards. Yankah argues that paying athletes would erode the association between athletes and their colleges (1). In this regard, athletes would choose colleges on the strength of their bid and not academic quality, tradition and beauty. In so doing, the connection of a student to the college’s values would diminish. Reducing college athletics into a market would undermine the gains that have so far been achieved regarding the entrenchment of core values, vision and mission of colleges.
Hartenstine argues that athletes are entitled to NCAA scholarships. These scholarships cover tuition fees, books, room, and laundry work (1). In this regard, athletes can meet their daily academic requirements while their parents struggle to meet the deficit. While rejecting the idea of paying college athletes, Thelin poses an intelligent question on whether athletes should be paid either $100,000 salary or $65,000 scholarship. From a phase value, $100,000 salary looks impressive. However, the author argues that this salary would be subjected to both federal and state income taxes which may reduce it significantly. On the other hand, tuition and college expenses are not subjected to deductions due to the fact that they meet the IRS eligibility threshold (Thelin 1). Thelin concludes that paying college athletes salaries is taxing and varies from one state to another. States such as Massachusetts have painful taxation regimes which may end up deducting salaries for college athletes and jeopardize their education.
According to Yankah, the ruling that was made in the court would reduce the athletes’ dependence on money. People would cheer them without being held hostage by racism, cynicism and exploitation (Yankah 1). The focus should be winning the games in colleges and earning opportunities to participate in next-level games. Hartenstine supports this proposition because at college, athletes should invest their time in studies while recognizing sports as a central part of the education. In this regard, participation in sports at college level should not be perceived as an opportunity to make money. Instead, it should be perceived as a means to enhance one’s potential in readiness for future responsibilities.
Thelin’s argument offers an economic view of the concept of remuneration. Marx and Hartenstine tend to agree on the notion that some of these athletes have poor economic agreements. In this case, an education that is pegged on their salaries instead of the scholarships is likely to face challenges. The end goal of enhancing the literacy skills of the student-athlete would be compromised in the event that they fail to raise enough fees for their education. Also, the issue of responsibility may arise if the athletes were paid salaries instead of scholarships.
In conclusion, Marx’s proposition that the athletes should be paid is not based on strong evidence if the data presented by Yankah, Hartenstine and Thelin are to be relied upon. I believe that college athletes should receive NCAA scholarships as a bigger scheme to enhance their education while recognizing their contribution to sports. Payment of direct salaries would shift focus from values and aspirations of colleges to monetary rewards.
Works Cited
Hartenstine, Warren. “College athletes should not be paid.” The Baltimore Sun.
2013, November 02. Web. <http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-11-02/news/bs-ed-college-athletics-20131102_1_graduation-rate-85-percent-15-percent>
Marx, Paul. “Athlete’s new day: College football players need pay for play, often over
classes.” The Baltimore Sun. 2013, October 30. Web. <http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-10-30/news/bs-ed-college-football-20131030_1_southeastern-conference-football-college-presidents>
Thelin, John. “Here’s why we shouldn’t pay college athletes.” Time. 2016, March 1. Web.
<http://time.com/money/4241077/why-we-shouldnt-pay-college-athletes/>
Yankah, Ekow. “Why NCAA athletes shouldn’t be paid.” The New Yorker. 2015, October
2015. Web. <http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/why-ncaa-athletes-shouldnt-be-paid>
