Dodany: Feb 6, 2012

Od: ShakinTheSouthland

Czas: 2:58

The 'Pay For Play' debate is one of college's biggest and most talked about injustices. The debate is whether collegiate athletes, the main focus being football players, should be compensated roughly $2,000 per year for their efforts. Universities make millions each year off the performance of student-athletes and many argue the least they can do is provide the students with a comfortable sum to pay for non-scholarly funds. University of Southern California sophomore Robert Woods learned "rent, utilities, and phone devour most of his monthly scholarship check, leaving only dollars a day to eat. The team feeds him dinner during the season, but the rest of the time, he says, 'you're on your own'". Athletics are too time consuming for athletes to pick up jobs and a majority of them come from poor backgrounds. This leads to improper benefits like selling jerseys and rings for money, which is against NCAA rules. However, many argue that 'Pay For Play' makes the athletes 'professionals' and completely takes away the sanctity of college football: pride for your team. People believe prospective recruits will attend the institutions that provide the most for themselves and their families, which generally will be large universities with television contracts. This will separate the rich teams from the poor teams and will make it extremely hard for teams with little funding to pull in top recruits. If college football players do get paid, the federally mandated law Title IX requires other teams to receive equal benefits. It is morally and ethically right for universities to provide student-athletes with a yearly stipend. If coaches can make millions of dollars per year, the universities can find room in their budget to provide assistance outside of scholarships for student-athletes. - Emmet Boland

Kanał: Sports

Tagi: college football  pay for play  clemson 

   Wyświetlenia: 121    Komentarze: 0