Counter Arguments For College Athletes
If a group of students attending college for free demanded payment for a game they play after school, would that seem fair? College attendees are there to get an education. Some of the students are athletes. College athletes should not receive a salary because they already receive benefits that are not available to other attendees, they would lose track of their purpose for attending college, and paying college athletes creates complications due to the need to pay other organizations.
Student athletes should not be able to receive a paycheck because they collect numerous benefits not attainable by other students. Primarily, According to Mark Murphy, scholarships are good enough:
Mark Murphy, Director of Athletics at Northwestern University, who participated in an ESPN [sports television network] debate on the topic of paying student-athletes, argues that these athletes currently receive scholarships, whose value, …show more content…
In fact in a survey of professional football players, 31 percent of them admitted to having accepted illegal payments during college (Porto). In another counter argument, if they had been paid they might not have been tempted to accept the bribes. Also, a Michigan study revealed that more than 5 percent of college football and men 's basketball players have either given inside information about their teams to gamblers to bet on games in which they have played, or shaved points in return for money (Porto). These athletes are desperate for money, so they will do anything in return. Paying the athletes is one solution to this problem. However, Charles Shackleford who made it to the NBA, accepted $65,000 in illegal payments during his three years in Raleigh (Porto). This proves that any athlete can accept illegal payments regardless of future riches. In conclusion, athletes should be paid so they do not get involved in under the table