To Pay or Not to Pay
To exploit means to make full use of and/or derive benefit from something or someone. In the case of student athletes, exploitation has become a major argument. In discussions of athletes and money, a controversial issue is whether or not student athletes should be paid. Many argue that being a college athlete is like having a full-time job, with players either at practice majority of the day, or in class the rest. In this case, they question why not give them some sort of payment to help aide the harsh student expenses they are forced to pay? While some may argue that they should be paid, others contend that they should not. Many may propose that student athletes should be not be paid because money could possibly have a negative effect on the way students look at playing a sport. It would become more of a job than just an extracurricular activity or something they love to do. On the other hand, it is my opinion that student athletes should not be paid; because, scholarships usually cover a big deal of expenses, it would be unfair to their peers, and most colleges and money could change the way a student may look at the sport.
In addition, one argument, taking into account that student athletes should not be paid, is that student athletes receive scholarships that pay for most of their college expenses. The research provided clarifies that athletes are actually being paid through their scholarships.
Murphy, Kate. Privilege, not job: College athletes shouldn't be paid. April 13, 2014. From the Phield- Sports Blog. Web. 14 September 2014.
This article successfully approves my statement that scholarships are indeed a nice payment for college athletes. Players are receiving an advanced education at universities and colleges that thousands of Americans can’t attend (Murphy). Plus they're getting it on the dime of the university (Murphy). Murphy goes on a bit further to say that there is no reason college athletes should be paid...