In November 2011, Sports Illustrated broached the subject of paying college athletes, suggesting that all Division I athletes, including those partaking in low-profile sports such as wrestling, receive some money for performance. But the $2,000 stipend failure indicates that many schools are unable to pay even a portion of their athletes, much less all of them. And at a time when college costs rise dramatically every year and more young adults are left with thousands of dollars in debt, is it responsible to suggest allocating any additional funds to sports?
Finally, we come back to the dilemma about whether paying college athletes is ethical or “in the spirit” of college sports. Despite his reforms, Emmert is clearly not in favor of paying off athletes. He is quoted by Nocera as saying:
“If we move toward a pay-for-play model– if we were to convert our student athletes to employees of the university– that would be the death of college athletics. Then they are subcontractors. Why would you even want them to be students? Why would you care about their graduation rates? Why would you care about their behavior?”
Those are good questions, and ones that may need to be asked again and again as the NCAA decides how to compensate its student athletes.
Do you watch college sports? Should big-time college athletes should be paid in more than just scholarships? Let us know what you think in the comments.
Photo credit: Parker Michael Knight
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may
not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.