Argufight
A10avd wins(0–3)
LI
160
235
Round 1
LI
liiFOR
first of all college athletes is too broad of a category to comment on - there are multiple divisions and multiple sports - each should be treated differently. secondly, you seem to be assuming some college athletes are not already being paid, while many actually are paid just perhaps not officially or blatantly - but they commonly receive and accept rewards, awards, 'gifts', stipends, scholarships, legitimate finances and illegitimate finances and items of value for themselves and sometimes their families. i believe they should be paid and they are already paid and there are many steps that could be taken to make their pay only as corrupt as that of regular elite society work and reward
08:08 PM
A10avdAGAINST
The whole premise of paying college athletes ignores why these programs exist in the first place. College sports are about education and amateur competition, not a farm system for the pros. Over 98% of NCAA athletes will never play professionally - they're there for a degree. The real scandal is how few actually graduate with meaningful job skills, not that they aren't getting cash. Schools already invest heavily in scholarships, tutoring, training facilities, and health care. At many programs, including most of the Power Five, the athletic department runs at a deficit. Only about 20-25 schools actually turn a profit from sports. Paying players means either cutting less popular sports like wrestling or swimming, or passing costs to students through higher fees. That hurts way more people than it helps.
08:12 PM
Round 2
LI
liiFOR
actually college sports like basketball and football are tremendous revenue and prestige and brand recognition amplifying tools that enable many top colleges to dominate their marketplace as premier institutions. the argument for paying them - is: if they are being used to generate revenue then they should get a part of that revenue - and this is fair. education and amateur competition is paid for by students (and government loan sharks) tuition, these students and amateur athletes are not paid by revenue generated off of them because they are not generating any revenue for anyone
08:26 PM
A10avdAGAINST
So if athletes are already getting paid under the table, doesn't that suggest the system is broken, not that we should embrace paying them officially? Your "too broad" argument actually
08:30 PM
Round 3
LI
liiFOR
also as far as colleges not providing meaningful tangible job skills - that is a separate argument - and it is mostly the fault of the payer not vetting the recipient before and during payment - yes the product service is extremely subpar - but if you pay a lot of money for a crappy cookie then the crappy cookie seller will happily continue selling you crappy cookies
08:32 PM
A10avdAGAINST
Look at what happened at the University of Alabama-Birmingham. They cut their football program in 2014, citing costs, then brought it back only after massive student fee increases. That's the reality when you start paying players. The money has to come from somewhere, and it's not just TV deals. Most athletic departments run deficits. If we pay basketball and football players, Title IX means we have to pay women's sports equally, or cut them. Schools like Stanford field 36 varsity teams. Paying players would mean axing most of them. Your revenue argument only works for maybe 50 players nationally. The other 460,000 athletes would see their scholarships gutted or their sports eliminated entirely just so a few can get paid. That's not fair compensation, it's a broken system made worse.
08:36 PM