Is about $11 thousand dollars per year an adequate amount for a job that demands forty plus hours of work per week worth it? In most cases, the answer is clearly no. $11 thousand dollars is way below minimum wage and there is virtually no way to live off of that kind of income alone. However, what if I said that $11 thousand dollars per year came from participating in college sports, would it be more fair then? The average athletic scholarship clocks in at just under $11,000 dollars per year. Is that enough? That question is the basis for  debate that has been around for the last 2-3 decades, and recently we saw a change in how the NCAA is approaching the question. In the past, the NCAA has been extremely strict on preventing athletes from making money off of their athletic talents in any way shape or form. It went as far as preventing athletes from making money off of completely external sources, such as social media platforms. In one well known case, popular YouTuber “Deestroying” was tasked with making a choice between being the kicker for the University of Central Florida, which is a Division I university, or his YouTube channel. Ultimately, Deestroying chose to pursue a career on YouTube, where he has found large success. However, many believe that he has the talent to be a kicker in today’s NFL, but as of now, he has not been given a chance due to him choosing YouTube over college. Is this fair? Recently, the NCAA has adopted a new temporary rule surrounding the subject. The new rule allows for college athletes to make money off of their name, image, and likeness. This rule comes on the heels of 7 states adopting the exact same rule. The NCAA rule itself will only hold water in those 7 states until either federal legislation is adopted, or the NCAA determines a permanent rule of its own, (CBS News). The opinions on the idea of college athletes are polarizing, and the arguments come to fruition in different manners. After analyzing the arguments of multiple articles, there seem to be common trends between arguments in favor of paying the student-athletes, and common trends between arguments against paying college athletes. In the case of being pro-pay, the arguments are more often than not pathos-based. On the other hand, when arguing against paying student-athletes the articles more heavily rely on logos.

A lot of the time, emotion plays the largest part in deciding where a person falls in any argument, and the argument of whether or not college athletes should receive payment for their athletics does not differ. It’s no coincidence that the entire argument in both Best College’s Should College Athletes be Paid, and The McDaniel Free Press’: Being a Student-Athlete: A Full Time Job, are constructed using pathos. In addition to those two full articles, the quotes included in the Business Insider article: Here’s the Insane Amount of Time Student-Athletes Spend on Practice, are also full of emotion from the students. In the Best Colleges article, the use of pathos is prevalent. The first example of pathos in the article comes straight from the introduction/hook of the article. The author uses strong and relatable imagery in order to create a familiar scene in the reader’s mind, which results in a feeling of nostalgia that draws the reader into the article. After reeling the reader in, the article goes on to make the reader ponder some of their moral values. They do this by saying: “When Nike sells an $80 Clemson University jersey with quarterback Trevor Lawrence’s name and number on it, shouldn’t he get a cut of the profits?”(Best Colleges). The previous question reveals how unfair it seems that “big business” makes millions in profits from the name of a child, while they make nothing in return. It seems unjust that these students do so much for nothing monetary in return. Also, in the article: Being a Student-Athlete: A Full Time Job the use of pathos is just as, if not more, prevalent and obvious than in the Best Colleges article. The author, Michael Corinaldi, consistently speaks on two main points. The first point he makes is that the drive of student-athletes is deserving of a somewhat consistent source of income. He believes that even Division III athletes deserve to be paid because a lot of the time they work just as hard as the Division I athletes. He argues,” Division III institutions might not bring the attention that a Division I institution does, but the drive and work ethic of student-athletes is consistent. Understanding the dedication required to balance both academics and athletics, schools should treat their athletes with higher standards…a student-athlete who brings attention to the school is deserving of some sort of income. Their work ethic and energy should be enough proof for a mandatory salary during the athlete’s respective sports season,”(McDaniel Free Press). The quote has the ability to draw out a sense of empathy in the reader. The quote causes the reader to question whether or not it’s fair that these kids, who put in more work than most of the population, do not get paid for their work while everyone else gets paid for whatever occupation they find themselves in. Is it morally correct for these kids to not receive a cent while working the hardest out of anyone? These are the questions that can convince many people to support paying college athletes. The other main point that the author argues, using pathos as well, is that these student-athletes deserve payment because of what they do for their school and the NCAA as a whole. Not only do these students bring in revenue for both the NCAA and their respective colleges, but they help raise the reputation of the school and aid in creating a “community” at their schools. Tracy Easton, sophomore football player at the time, reports that in his experience, “football brings an exciting atmosphere to the school. Seeing the Hill packed on Saturdays is overwhelming and also heartwarming,”(McDaniel Free Press). Many people who have attended even just high school know that feeling of camaraderie during an athletic event. It doesn’t matter if you were a player or a fan watching and cheering from the bleachers, this quote brings out a sense of nostalgia in the exact same way that the hook of the Best Colleges Article did. Typically this sense of nostalgia is associated with “the good ‘ole days” and happiness. Since the article creates this happy feeling, many readers find themselves swayed towards agreeing with the argument the article is making. This is exactly how the author uses pathos in persuading their readers into agreeing with their perspective. To sum up, the use of pathos is a common factor among articles and arguments that are in favor of paying student-athletes for their work and effort, which is the opposite of the logos-driven anti-pay arguments. Specifically, many of these pro-articles rely on making their readers ponder morally challenging questions, which leads them to agree with the authors.

On the other side of the argument, logos is very commonly used to argue against paying student-athletes. For example, in The Foothill Dragon Press’ article, one of the author’s main reasons behind not supporting the payment of college-athletes is because of the logistical nightmare that would ensue while trying to pass and shortly thereafter. He asks a series of questions that would need to be answered prior to changing the rules the NCAA had at the time. He believes that even if there was a way to pay every single athlete in the 20 NCAA sports, there would be too many variables that would make the process almost impossible to complete. The author asks: “… how would the NCAA decide to distribute the money?” and “ Would athletes of different sports receive the same amount?” (Foothill Dragon Press). The author believes that there’s no correct answer to these questions; at least one group will feel cheated no matter what the answer to those questions may be. If every sport were to be paid equally, athletes who participate in major breadwinning sports, such as football and basketball, would feel as if they aren’t earning as much as they might deserve, since the sports they participate in almost always bring in more money than all of the other sports at their institutions. While if there was a difference in the payment between sports, the athletes who receive less would feel as if they are being almost disrespected and disregarded by their schools, despite putting in the same effort that athletes in other sports put in. Overall, the author argues that this whole situation would be extremely messy, and would only lead to more conflict down the road by approaching the topic from a very logistical standpoint. Another point that author Nick Zoll comments on is that the best of these student-athletes, who might deserve the money the most, have extremely bright futures ahead of them that might be filled with more money than anyone could ever spend. Zoll uses, at the time, Clemson quarterback Deshaun Watson as an example of this idea. Zoll states that “He did not receive an extra payment for his accomplishments, but instead he will be rewarded in this year’s upcoming NFL Draft, where he is projected to be a top 10 pick. Watson will likely sign a multi-million dollar contract with his respective team to begin his career and may see the opportunity to earn even more money if he rises to stardom,”(Foothill Dragon Press). Looking back at it now, ignoring the current air surrounding Deshaun Watson, Zoll was totally correct. Since being drafted in 2017, Watson has made quite a name for himself on the Houston Texans. While in the NFL, Watson has been selected to 3 Pro Bowls, been named offensive player of the week 5 times, been named offensive player of the month three times, and has been on the NFL’s top 100 players of the year list for the last four years – peaking at number 18 in the entire league,(Pro Football Reference). Currently, Watson is signed to a 4 year, $156 million dollar contract. This proves that Zoll’s logical thinking back in 2017 panned out the exact way that he foresaw. Logically speaking, the best athletes in their respective sports who are the most deserving of being paid in college are the ones who have the greatest chances to find success similar to Watson. The amount of money that Watson would have received would have been minuscule compared to his current NFL paycheck, which shows that the logistical nightmare that paying these athletes is not worth going through when it might not affect their lives in the long run. The final reason why Zoll is against student-athletes receiving payment is the effect that such a change would have on the game. The whole reason for playing a college sport would change with the integration of a payment plan. The attitude of the athletes would shift from being centered around their love of the game, to being about the money they can make off of their athletics, and it would force education into the backseat for many students (Foothill Dragon Press). This argument is logos-based because the logic of college athletes would be flipped on its head. Payment would promote athletics over education, which for  99% of student-athletes is detrimental because of how rare it is that someone actually makes it to the professional level. If education is put on the back burner, many people will be out of luck and unqualified for a job once they graduate from school. In conclusion, the Foothill Dragon Press uses many logos-based arguments in their article in order to discourage the payment of college-athletes.

The idea of student-athletes receiving payment has sparked plenty of debates over the years. Typically, those who are in favor of the NCAA’s new ruling and the idea of college-athletes having the ability to make money argue their side using pathos based claims; while those who find the old NCAA rules of these athletes receiving no money whatsoever lean more heavily on the use of logos. The debate shows no signs of disappearing, especially since the new rule the NCAA implemented is only temporary. The debate seems to be at its apex currently because wherever the NCAA decides to go from here will most likely be in effect in the long term. Ultimately, the debate has no “right” answer, and that’s why there are still arguments over the topic. The reader/listener of the arguments is left to decide what they believe on their own. In this case, neither side is right nor wrong.

 

Primary:

“Here’s The Insane Amount Of Time Student-Athletes Spend On Practice.” Business Insider, 27 Jan. 2015, www.businessinsider.com/college-student-athletes-spend-40-hours-a-week-practicing-2015-1?international=true&r=US&IR=T.

The article centers around a lawsuit filed by two former UNC student athletes. The lawsuit was filed due to the lack of educational opportunities that were given to them because of their athletic careers for the school. The students explain that they had no time to hit the books because they were too busy practicing for upwards of 40 hours per week for their sports. The article provides past survey results showing the mind boggling amount of time that these students spend practicing for their sports. Some of these athletes are spending 42 hours every week committed to their athletics, which leaves almost no time for them to catch up on their studies when you consider that the athletes also have to attend their classes and sleep.

 

Posted By: Michael Corinaldi, Contributor. “Being a Student-Athlete: A Full-Time Job – The McDaniel Free Press.” The McDaniel Free Press, 14 Nov. 2018, www.mcdanielfreepress.com/2018/11/14/being-a-student-athlete-a-full-time-job.

In the article the author provides a few reasons on why they believe that college athletics is a full time job, and why the athletes should be paid as if their sport is a job. This article comes from the perspective of a student that attends a DIII school, and they provide insight into why not just DI athletics should be looked at in the conversation, but all divisions of sports; “Division III institutions might not bring the attention that a Division I institution does, but the drive and work ethic of student-athletes is consistent.” This article provides valuable insight on what some college students who are not in the athletics program think about the debate. It also comes from the perspective of someone attending a DIII school, which normally are not associated heavily with sports. The interesting part is that the DIII athletes put in the same effort that the DI athletes put in, so the author believes that they should receive pay proportional to that of what DI athletes would make if they were allowed to make money.

 

Tori, Tori. “College Athletes Can Earn Money from Their Name, Image and Likeness, NCAA Rules.” CBS News, 6 July 2021, www.cbsnews.com/news/ncaa-rules-college-athletes-get-paid-name-image-likeness.

The CBS article reports on the official temporary rules that the NCAA has adopted for the time being. The article also gives insight into why exactly the NCAA has recently been forced to change their stance on paying their athletes. The official rules that the NCAA has in place is very important in understanding the situation as it stands today. Also Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s quote: “The NCAA couches its arguments for not paying student athletes in innocuous labels. But the labels cannot disguise the reality: The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America,” is correlates very closely to the feelings that many hold towards the occupation.

 

“Should College Athletes Be Paid?” BestColleges.Com, 7 Sept. 2021, www.bestcolleges.com/blog/should-college-athletes-be-paid.

The author of this “Best Colleges” provides a list containing some of both the pros and the cons of paying college athletes for their athletics. They provide 6 pros and 6 cons each, explaining the rationale behind each as they go along. Throughout the article the author attempts to maintain a strictly reportative attitude, however there is a sense of bias that leaks through. The author is obviously in favor of college athletes receiving compensation, which is evident through their use of pathos in the article. Despite being somewhat biased in the article, the author acknowledges strong points for both sides of the argument. All of the points are important to at least reference when discussing the topic, and the author’s use of pathos does not hurt their argument.

 

Secondary:

“Pro Football Statistics and History.” Pro-Football-Reference.Com, 2021, www.pro-football-reference.com.

Pro Football Reference is a website that compiles and reports stats for every single NFL player who has played and is playing currently. The website has career statistical totals, seasonal statistic totals, and has the stats of a player in every game that they’ve played in. PFR can be used to help both supporters and those who are against college athletes being paid because it shows that stats of every player; meaning that it can be used to find certain players who thrived as a rookie/young player in the NFL, or it can also be used to find players who struggled immensely in their first few years after having high expectations.

 

“Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972.” US EPA, 30 Aug. 2021, www.epa.gov/ocr/title-ix-education-amendments-act-1972#:%7E:text=Title%20IX%20provides%3A,activity%20receiving%20Federal%20financial%20assistance.

Title IX is the law that prevents discrimination based upon sex when receiving financial aid from the government. The law exactly states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Referencing Title IX is required when examining the “Best Colleges” article because one of the points the author makes in their article is around this law.