The compensation of collegiate coaches entails the payment for the services they offer during the games they manage. It is evident that regardless of the services offered by the coaches, it is prudent to pay them without discrimination of any sort (Kahn, 2015). The services the coaches offer are almost the same because the management of a game is not an easy task. Though there exist various factors that determine the financial status of a college, it also tends to affect the amount allocated to sports. Therefore, the amount paid tends to vary, though not by the game, but by the financial ability of the college to pay for the services offered.
The problem in the current context is the need for the uniformity of the system regarding remuneration of the collegiate coaches. Therefore, the purpose of the study involves an analysis of the need to standardize payment regardless of the sport(Kahn, 2015). The need to standardize payment has diverse reasons as will appear in the following analysis, and the same reasons give room for an inference that leads to the final decision by the sports sector.
However, there exist a myriad of reasons for the payment of coaches. To begin with, a standardized payment of the coaches shows some form of fairness (Caruso, 2015). It is quite fair to pay the people who serve the same purpose in a standard manner, to create a sense of uniformity in the sports sector, and shunning the avenues that might create personal interest(Kahn, 2015). The personal interest might result into people admiring certain colleges, due to the better payment they offer, compared to others.
Additionally, the standard payment method enables the implementation of a new system, in an easier way. In that connection, the standardized payment will concentrate management to one person, and it becomes difficult to manipulate them because they operate according to the provisions of the sports society, or sector within the nation (Sheetz, 2015). Therefore, the interference will reduce to a certain extent, since the person will have the power to make decisions based on the power bestowed upon them by the executive of the sports federation.
In addition, a standard payment cannot change the quality of the top teams. The coach managing the top team does not work hard as a consequence of the huge salary. They perform based on their expertise in managing the team, by arranging players in an orderly manner, which will guarantee adequate protection as well as an organized attack on the opposing team (Standen, 2014). Therefore, the management of a game does not depend on the amount of money paid. As a result, the varied levels of payment the coaches receive will not have a significant contribution to the performance of the team, but rather creates a form of classification of the coaches according to the financial muscle, and that will lead to the problems associated with ego.
Additionally, there will be no scrapping of other sports out of the budget because the coaches receive fair payment(Sheetz, 2015). The budget of the sports sector caters for the activities as well as the remuneration of all workers within it, and that guarantees uniform payment regardless of the game (Standen, 2014). Otherwise, the coaches will tend to avoid low paying games, an act that will create disruption in the sector, because of the polarity that enters into the system.
In conclusion, it is prudent to standardize remuneration to avoid giving some coaches an advantage over others. The sports sector is one area that needs adequate fairness because most people are fans of various teams and a slight mistake or form of the inferiority of a team or their coach will spur diverse reactions, which might be catastrophic to the entire sports sector. However, due to the broadness of the subject, it is necessary for the researchers to mount their studies on the wider aspects of the topic. Though, most of the studies should focus on shading more light on the need to have a uniform remuneration system for all sports, giving each aspect of the topic adequate analysis in terms of time and detail.
References
Caruso, A. R. (2015). Collegiate Collisions on the Field and in the Courtroom: Will Labor Peace Save Student-Athletes from Further Injury. J. Bus. & Tech. L., 10, 15.
Kahn, J. H. (2015). A Tax Audible: Coaches and Buyouts. Vand. L. Rev. En Banc, 68, 143.
Sheetz, A. C. (2015). Student-Athletes vs. NCAA: Preserving Amateurism in College Sports Amidst the Fight for Player Compensation. Brook. L. Rev., 81, 865.
Standen, J. (2014). The Next Labor Market in College Sports. Or. L. Rev., 92, 1093-1127.
