This past fall, I was privy to many conversations
involving the issue of whether or not college athletes should be paid for their
“services” to the university. Namely,
the “big money” sports i.e. football and basketball for those who are
unaware. I have heard numerous concrete
and far-fetched arguments both for and against this idea, but have yet to reach
a sound conclusion. To be honest, I am
torn between what seems right, and how the abuse of such a policy would render
havoc on an athletic department.
My fiancé played football for a division I college,
and thankfully made it out without a serious injury or needing a surgery. From my experience, this is not the
norm. It seems as though most of the
contact athletes suffer at least one major injury in their four years, often
times leading to a surgery. Some of
these injuries can lead to long-term issues such as arthritis. In the case of concussions, we are only just
now beginning to see the long-term neural damage multiple concussions can
cause. America loves its football. As much as we cringe when we see a crushing
tackle, this is part of the thrill and draw of the game- are we not praising
the number of sacks the defense has per game?
This is precisely the reason the game of football is here to stay, and
why I have a career in the first place.
But for the 98% of student athletes who “Go on to major in something
besides professional sports” (as the NCAA so accurately puts it in their commercials)
is the possibility of long-term damage to the body worth a “free” degree? If that wasn’t enough, the gaming industry
makes millions using college football player’s likenesses, and in some cases
the athletes cannot even afford to buy the game themselves (see the MIZZOU
article in Sports Illustrated).
The biggest debate lies in whether or not paying
student athletes could ultimately undermine the very principles of college
athletics. NCAA sports are amateur, in
that they are not the highest level of competition (the NFL being the highest
level with football). Another argument
is that by paying college players, it would decrease the popularity of the
sport(s) altogether. And where is the
line drawn? Only those who participate
in football and basketball can get paid, because sports like tennis and
swimming are non-contact and are therefore “easier on the body?” I doubt that argument would go far with the
swimmer working through their third shoulder surgery, and former collegiate
tennis athlete who needs a double knee replacement.
The fact of the matter is, however, that traditionally
the average stipend check may not in fact cover all expenses for student
athletes. Many colleges, like the one I
work at, cannot financially afford to take on other additional expenses like
wisdom tooth removal, and year-round contacts.
What about when the student-athlete needs a suit for their first
interview? To fly home to pay their last
respects to a dying family member? To
afford the $7 salad verses the $2 cheeseburger, because we tell them they need
to eat better? (Say what you want, but
eating healthy is way more expensive than eating like crap… that’s a whole
other blog.) Some colleges have access
to the NCAA’s special opportunity fund for things like the flight home, but not
all athletes are eligible for this money, and in some cases (like oral surgery)
cannot get to it quick enough. These are
the kids who fall through the cracks.
The abuse of being paid to play college sports is the
biggest hurdle for the NCAA. With
athletes being busted for a plethora of illegal and immoral activities, this
may just open the checkbook for some to continue down the proverbial path of
destruction. But this statistic only
accounts for a small percentage. Many of
the student athletes outside of the spotlight attend college to gasp! actually
get their degree and become a productive member of society. At the end of the day, if the college
athletics support staff’s job is to prepare these students for life, can we
really say that we’ve done all that we can?
-Courtney Hobbs
No comments:
Post a Comment