College Athletes Should Get Paid
Colleges harvest billions of dollars from student athletes but deny them from their rightful earnings. The NCAA made over $1 billion in revenue in 2017. That money gets returned to member schools, to fund their sports programs, coaches and administrators, as well as scholarships and academic assistance for student athletes.
But these athletes are not paid for the use of their name, image or likeness. Universities with top teams can scrape in nearly $20 million a year from sponsors like Nike or Under Armour, while athletes whose talent attracts these sponsorships walk away with not a single penny. It’s only fair that these athletes should at least get some pay for bringing on the fame upon them and their university’s team.
Paying college athletes can encourage healthier student athletes. It would allow them to focus on academics and athletics without worrying about making ends meet. Most athletes in college never become professional athletes. Offering these athletes stipend for playing would gain another incentive for students to become involved in athletics. Not every student athlete qualifies for a scholarship. Paying them would provide some financial relief to families.
Paying college athletes may certainly attract talent. Colleges willing to pay their athletes would attract more talented and better athletes. College athletes are often drawn into corruption by agents and boosters who are willing to bribe them to play for other schools. This can be eliminated if these college athletes were paid. Players wouldn’t have to leave school early and would still be able to pursue an education while taking care of their family back home. This could increase graduation rates, allow fans to see their favorite players mature through college and ensure coaches are preparing their athletes as much as possible for the next level.
These athletes are bringing in incredible and insane amounts of revenue to these schools, so why aren’t they receiving what is due? The NCAA should take this new dispute into consideration and think about these student athletes on how they’ve brought in the majority of the revenue to their schools for their performances in their sports.
ahntkd99
carahall
andrewbecharaa
athenapup4
bane1900
bestbaker123
bmdpiano
comp0327
compclass8
cynicalwordsmith22
doglover441
drippydoughnut
drpaleontology
gcatt310
givemeclouttokens
hershey515
iamsleepy01
imagination4421
influenza123
jackso23
Jayv23
kraemercali
lazybear8
lelebxby
lg102015
lovericeandnoodles
lucbe219
morra2024
mpsj13
roses0102
Sub2MigzFilms
smellycat23
tenere84
thefrontbottom
voxpopuli75
whosyourcookie22
yankeefan25
Newspaperlessness 
Imagination, before I chime in on the feedback you’ve received from your classmates, I need to inject some early advice. Editorials, like Letters to the Editor, are responsive pieces of opinion. They react to a new piece of legislation, a new court decision, a recent scientific study, new poll results, or a published piece of news or opinion. They don’t arise, as your piece appears to do, from nowhere.
That said, I did a very quick search of the News section of the New York Times and found and linked these two items from 2019. Read them, react to them, and include a direct reference to at least one of them in your next draft:
1. Learning Network: Should College Athletes Be Paid?
2. Pay College Athletes
P1. You start very strong with a clear statement of your position. The language of “harvest,” “deny,” and “rightful” is well-chosen. All are ethically loaded and urge your readers to conclude the athletes are being cheated.
It’s not too soon to indicate how the “member schools” squander their millions on lavish facilities, outrageous salaries for head coaches, anything else you can dig up to further indict them for having and spending but denying any money to the real talent.
Your final sentence makes the serious misstep of allowing that money goes into scholarships and academic assistance for the athletes. You don’t mitigate that claim or diminish its power to counter your own position that the students don’t benefit from the largess.
P2. Here you’re making a good and righteous argument, but one that isn’t immediately pertinent. The “use of their name, image, or likeness” would not be compensated by the colleges. It would come from game or athletic apparel companies, right? Nike and Under Armour would pay the athletes directly. That’s the current controversy anyway. Nobody has suggested that colleges would funnel money from Nike to the individual players, but many players feel entitled to license their likenesses directly to the corporations. Be clear about the mechanics of the transactions you suggest should be permitted; otherwise, you’ll lose credibility with readers. Here’s a link to a recent article on the issue of college athletes entering likeness contracts: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/sports/should-college-athletes-be-paid.html
P3. Here my advice is mostly structural. Your many fine points are delivered as a list. Let’s start by re-ordering them:
—Not every student athlete qualifies for a scholarship.
—Many have to pay the full freight of their tuition and living expenses.
—Paying college athletes can encourage healthier student athletes.
—It would relieve them of the burden of maintaining part-time jobs to make ends meet.
—It would allow them to focus on academics and athletics.
—Most athletes in college never become professional athletes.
—They engage in athletics for other intangible advantages.
—Offering these athletes a stipend for playing would be an added incentive.
—As non-employees, they’re not eligible for workers compensation if injured.
—Paying them would provide some financial relief to families.
P4. Some additional structural advice, Imagination. You fall into a “Here’s my point; here’s another way to say it” pattern.
Athletes who aren’t paid can be corrupted; paid athletes wouldn’t be corrupted.
Paid players could stay until they graduate; paying players would increase graduation rates.
It’s an alluring argument, by the way, but it wouldn’t eliminate corruption. Agents would still dangle higher pay at schools that could afford it. You need to challenge me back on that.
P5. Here your argument is purely rhetorical; no new claims, no new arguments. That’s OK, but it could appeal to all three persuasive skills: logos, ethos, pathos.
Logos: The athletes bring in lots of money. Anybody else associated with the college who did so would be compensated with a salary, a commission, a bonus. What makes these athletes different?
Ethos: We allow these kids to put their bodies at serious risk for the glory of the school with very little chance it will get them to professional sports. Don’t we owe them some kind of insurance for all that risk?
Pathos: We expect athletes to show their loyalty to their alma maters but cut them the minute they can’t play or we find someone better. Not paying them is just another way to disrespect them.
Do you find this helpful, Imagination? I hope to see significant revisions on your next draft. Put your post back into the Feedback Please category when you’ve made them, and leave me another Reply to instruct me what you want to concentrate on next. And thanks. I enjoy the interaction.
LikeLike
Your editorial was very well written. You made your claim clear and straightforward. You did well in providing readers with information that supported your claim. I think you also did good on offering some solutions to solve the problem and writing how your solution can provide multiple benefits.
LikeLike
You had a very good start to your writing by stating your claim immediately which drew me in to see what you had to say about it. You make your points very clear and i pretty much agree with what your claiming. You have good support to your claim which kept me into the reading. Keep up the good work and i really enjoyed what you had to say about this topic
LikeLike
Great start to your editorial as you stated your claim in your first sentence. You get your perspective right from the beginning. Anyways, your last sentence of you third paragraph seems out of place as if you just threw it in. You should of used that sentence early on in your editorial for more support. Also, there are a couple grammar and punctuation errors throughout. Just make sure you reread at least once or twice for these little problems.
LikeLike
Thanks for the feedback!
LikeLike
Hello! I want to compliment you on how clear you are with your argument from the beginning. I enjoyed your writing and it interested me in the topic.
I would suggest maybe using an example that proves that paying college athletes would lead to all of the points you made. That would convince your readers that this is something worth looking into.
A good strong vocabulary to support your argument would benefit your editorial as well. Strong language to insinuate that you belong to one side.
LikeLike
Thanks for the feedback!
LikeLike
Of course!
LikeLike
‘But these athletes are not paid for the use of their name, image or likeness. Universities with top teams can scrape in nearly $20 million a year from sponsors like Nike or Under Armour, while athletes whose talent attracts these sponsorships walk away with not a single penny. It’s only fair that these athletes should at least get some pay for bringing on the fame upon them and their university’s team.” This was a great paragraph, straight to the point and every sentence is useful. Last paragraph could have driven the point home a little harder, but overall very good in my opinion.
LikeLike
Thanks for the feedback!
LikeLike
Your article is very good and I enjoyed reading it. Your points are clear and concise. Maybe start off the fourth paragraph with different phrasing since the prior paragraph started the same. In the fourth paragraph you say, “Players wouldn’t have to leave school early and would still be able to pursue an education while…” maybe state what kind of players. Players who have financial problems wouldn’t have to…
I think the last sentence is a run on sentence too. Maybe end the part of the sentence at “consideration.”
LikeLike
Thanks for the feedback!
LikeLike
I think is really well written and organized. you addressed your stance early on, in the first sentence pretty much which makes the entire article that much more effective. I think maybe if you use more facts from your research rather than saying “this could happen” or “this would happen”. I feel like it would be more effective if the results of paying athletes was presented factually it would have a slightly different effect. I really liked your writing and honestly don’t have much to recommend for improving it. It was well written and effective in my eyes!
LikeLike
Thanks for the feedback!
LikeLike
Be back to peer review!
LikeLike
I’ll be back to provide peer review for this one.
LikeLike
peer review
LikeLike
I’ll be back to provide peer review
LikeLike
What I really like how you stated what side you’re on just from a single word. It was informational and really well written.
Offering these athletes stipend for playing would gain another incentive or students to become involved in athletics. I think you made a small mistake. OR, in between incentive and students
Other than that, It was great and keep up the good work.
LikeLike
Thanks for the feedback!
LikeLike
be back to peer review this one
LikeLike
I’ll be back to provide peer review
LikeLike
ill be back to provide peer review
LikeLike