Annotated Bibliographies papers: NCCA Player Should Not Get Paid
Annotated Bibliography: NCCA Player Should Not Get Paid
McKenzie, Richard B., and E. Thomas Sullivan. “Does the NCAA Exploit College Athletes An Economics and Legal Reinterpretation.” Antitrust Bull. 32 (1987): 373.
The study of McKenzie and Sullivan clarifies that NCAA does not pay college athletes. The payments that the athletes receive does not cover all their expenses. Whereas a full scholarship should cover tuition, textbooks, board, and room, the NCAA scholarship only covers part of these expenditures. The NCCA officials insist that the annual cost for a full, in-state public scholarship is $15,000.
McKenzie et al. argues that NCAA is not in support of the motion to pay college athletes. The body understands that the money generated by the sports may not end up supporting the classroom activities. Therefore, the usual college scholarship for the athletes does not make the students financially superior to their classmates. The fact that the scholarship does not leave the students with extra money to lavish in posh lifestyles makes them equal to the rest. The stand of these scholars is that the NCCA players should not get more than the scholarship token. In conclusion, NCCA is clear that its primary aim is to improve the lives of the players through sponsoring their education. If there is any player who thinks NCCA is a platform to generate wealth, they are mistaken.
Purdy, Dean A., D. Stanley Eitzen, and Rick Hufnagel. “Are athletes also students? The educational attainment of college athletes.” Social Problems29.4 (1982): 439-448.
The study of Purdy, Eitzen, and Hufnagel criticizes the people who argue that without the payment, the student athletes would perhaps abort their athletic and academic goals. It would be unfair if the NCAA would not appreciate the efforts that the athletes make by way of giving them payments. These students have so much dedication to the sports that they do not have the time to look for jobs. If they are not in class studying, they are in the field practicing or winning awards for their institutions. Therefore, failure to pay them would mean living a disadvantaged lifestyle since they would lack decent clothes among other luxuries.
The study of Purdy et al. explains that the argument that the universities pay the NCCA players since they do not have the time to look or partake part-time jobs does not hold water. According to these scholars, there are thousands of students who take up unpaid internships. If the institutions cared so much about their students getting broke, they should step in to pay the unpaid interns as well. Furthermore, life in college is a hustle for most students. Therefore, there is nothing unusual with a student-athlete living a miserable life due to lack of finances. It is unfair to other students when they have to struggle in making ends meet while their classmates continue enjoying the college resources. In conclusion, a school is a social place, and if student athletes are eligible for payment, the result shall be the emergence of social classes. The competition will divert from academic to financial. The students who feel too inferior can even drop out of school for fear of discrimination by their wealthy schoolmates.
Davis, Timothy. “African-American student-athletes: Marginalizing the NCAA regulatory structure.” Marq. Sports LJ 6 (1995): 199.
Davis explains that for a typical football player in Division 1, they devote 43.3 hours weekly to their sporting activities. Looking at the average number of hours of work for a typical American, the student-athlete spends 3.3 extra hours. Additionally, during the nationally televised games, the students have to miss their classes. Such games bring in a lot of revenues. He argues that paying the players is a show of sympathy for the time lost.
The study of Davis goes ahead to explain that it does not sound right to say that the students lose a lot of class time when they miss class to participate in national games. A college student is mature to strike a balance between sports and studies. It all narrows down to making priorities. If you feel your involvement in the sports is a hindrance to your education, the door is open to quitting sports and concentrate on the studies. How does money compensate for the lessons lost? The hard side of the issue is that even if you get paid for every lesson lost, it is upon you to make an effort to recover the lost time. If not, you shall continue to be wealthy while your grades decline. In conclusion, a school should prepare the students to become effective time managers when they join the workforce. Therefore, the students should see the challenge to balance between school and sports as an opportunity to better their skills. At some point, they shall have to balance between work and family, who will they expect to pay them for the increased responsibilities? Nobody, of course!
Schneider, Raymond G. “College students’ perceptions on the payment of intercollegiate student-athletes.” College Student Journal 35.2 (2001): 232.
Schneider explains that a person should participate in a sporting activity because of the passion they have for the game. Paying the student athletes would mean that most people would be in it because of the greed for money. Furthermore, all institutions, whether large or small, have an opportunity to interact through sports competitions. It means that if the schools agreed to pay the athletes, the gap between the small and large institutions would widen.
Why does Schneider not advocate paying the NCCA players? His arguments are reasonable – a well-to-do university can decide to hire professional athletes to win awards for the institution. But what will happen to the colleges that have financial challenges? Does it mean they shall have to drop out of the gaming activities because they cannot match the prowess of their competitors? No! The schools should encourage their students to pursue their interests in sports for future gain. At the college level, the aim should be purposely for interaction, practice and entertainment. The money factor should only apply to the students when they leave school. At this point, they can use their prowess to earn as much as possible. In conclusion, let the students use sports for socialization and not as a tool to generate wealth. Academics should come first, sports second. Therefore, it is better when institutions feel threatened on the basis of academic performance. Let us not prioritize on sports while in school.
Zimbalist, Andrew. Unpaid Professionals: Commercialism and Conflict in big-time college sports. Princeton University Press, 2001. Print. Pgs. 120 – 134.
Zimbalist points out that the college composition has it that the student non-athletes are fewer than the student athletes. As a result, they try their hands on anything that promises the generation of income. It should be the case for the athletes as well. Nobody should feel inferior just because they cannot participate in sports. Therefore, apart from the usual scholarship, no athlete should earn extra money.
Zimbalist is right in his lamentations. He clearly explains that recognizing their efforts would leave the others feeling undermined. In return, they would try to look for cheap ways of earning extra money in order to equal to their athlete school mates. It is disturbing when a student goes to the groceries buying vegetables or dining in neighborhood kiosks while their friends in sports are regular customers in the city restaurants and famous malls. The inferiority complex will see other students developing vices such as prostitution and stealing since they wish to experience a decent lifestyle. In wrapping up, it is unfair to pay the athletes while the classroom heroes remain unnoticed. The institution that feels generous to reward its student athletes should remember that the awards should apply to all the students who did well in other areas such as classwork. Since it is not possible to consider everyone in the reward system, it is unethical to feel that NCCA players are the eligible candidates for the award.