In part 1, we discussed the cons and obstacles that will make implementing a plan to pay college athletes a tough task.
In part 2 of Should College Athletes Be Paid? Pro’s and Cons… let’s quickly examine the pros (no pun intended) of paying collegiate athletes.
Fair to the Athlete.Schools don’t have to pay the players, so the coaches salaries are getting higher and higher every year. As of March 2010, almost a dozen Division 1A schools spent at least 38% more on the salaries of their offensive or defensive coordinators than they did in 2009.
The players are the ones risking their bodies. The players don’t get a share of the revenue, yet they’re the product that fans pay to see, and that produces the millions and billions of dollars in television revenue for the powerhouse conferences.
Store owners, schools, conferences, and coaches (amongst many other parties) profit from college football, yet the players are the only party not benefiting financially, and that’s not fair, in my opinion.
Could Decrease Number of Players that Accept “Improper Benefits.” Let’s not be naive here and think that this would stop player’s from taking benefits from people.
Some player’s are going to take money and benefits regardless. Some players, however, accept the benefits strictly out of financial desperation.
For some of these players, receiving an extra $5,000 or so a year could definitely deter them from accepting improper benefits.
Do you see any pros to this that I might’ve overlooked? Do you disagree with me? Leave a comment!
Check out the video below, where Bryant Gumbel and guests engage in a conversation about whether or not college athletes should be paid.
Follow me on Twitter! @alvingrier
Click here to connect with us on Facebook.