Kerr 1

Michael Kerr
Ms. Blommer
English 1010
16 May 2014
Issue Exploration Project:
Should College Athletes Be Paid?
Self-Reflection
As I was writing this paper, I gained a better understanding of how college athletics
work. I had not realized how much money is generated through only a few sports. I was also
surprised to find how many people thought that college athletes deserved to be paid. In my
mind, I always thought that being able to play collegiate athletics would be the greatest thing in
the world. The idea of being paid to do so had never crossed my mind. After reading so many
articles pro-paying college athletes, it really made me think about how that may be a good idea.
But at the same time, I still feel like people who want college athletes to be paid are greedy, in
a sense. I feel like they should be satisfied with the continuation of their playing.
My writing process for this paper was similar to the other papers I have written this
year, which is a little bit of a bad thing. I procrastinated slightly, but not as much as I have for
other papers. I eventually started writing the paper a few days before the first draft was due,
and have still had enough time to complete all of it. This time I started in the middle of the
paper. I did not begin with the introduction and work my way to the conclusion. Instead, I
started with the summaries and analysis, followed by the commentary, conclusion,
introduction, and self-reflective essay. By working in this order, I was able to get most of the
Kerr 2

hard stuff done first, so the rest of the writing was not too difficult. It still would have been
smarted to start earlier so I could have had more time to gather my thoughts. But will I ever
learn from experiences like this? Probably not.
In reading my essay, I want readers to notice how for almost every pro of paying college
athletes, there is a con that opposes it. On page eleven, Brill is talking about how much money
college athletics brings in, he assumes that every college brings in a significant amount of
money. But Dosh has evidence that contradicts this idea. There are several other examples of
pros being negated by cons throughout this paper.
I had challenges finding articles against paying college athletes. Most papers and articles
out there are in favor of doing so. Since I was against it, I needed pieces supporting my views. I
was able to find some, but not as many as were opposing my opinions.
This product brought in everything I have been taught in English 1010. There are aspects
of this paper where I had to summarize and analyze, both of which have been a main focus in
this class. In completing this assignment, I have demonstrated that I now understand how to
effectively summarize an image or article without plagiarizing. I have also learned how to
analyze something using rhetorical strategies.






Kerr 3

Annotated Bibliography
Brill, John. Should College Athletes be Paid?. Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism.
University of Maryland. Web. 19 April 2014.
The article Should College Athletes be Paid? written by John Brill, gives several
reasons why college athletes should be paid. Brill also gives reasons why people may say
student-athletes should not receive compensation.
Throughout this article, Brill uses logos, ethos, and pathos. One of his strongest points in
his use of logo is when he brings in the fact that the coach of the University of Texas makes
more money than the school gives to football players in scholarships (Brill 3). Brill does a
wonderful job at using logos when he brings in the other side of the argument into his article.
He says that the athletes are students first, as they are called student-athletes. Brill goes on to
say that all though they may be student-athletes, often times their athletics comes before
academics (Brill 4). This use of logos helps him prove the other side incorrect, therefore making
his point stronger. This article is intended for all of those who are interested in the topic.
I will be able to use this article in my paper to show how student-athletes are more so
athlete-students. I can compare this article to the one written by Allen Sack to show the
different viewpoints in athletes being paid.
Goldman, Lee. Sports and Antitrust: Should College Students Be Paid to Play?. 65 Notre Dame
L. Rev. 1989-1990. HeinOnline. Web. 21 April 2014.
The article, written by Lee Goldman, entitled Sports and Antitrust: Should College
Students Be Paid to Play? was published in the 65 Notre Dame Law Review 1989-1990. It
Kerr 4

discusses whether or not college students should be paid to play. The article gives data to help
show what a big business the NCAA is.
The only rhetorical strategy in this article that is used is logos. It gives a plethora of data
in order to show what kind of money the NCAA makes off of its sports. Goldman tells how
much money is made from basketball, football, and television (Goldman 1). His lack of any
other rhetorical device helps to focus on the logos and the numbers in order to show them
clearly to the reader. The intended audience is those who are reading the law review.
I will be able to use this in my paper to help show how big of a business the NCAA is,
along with the article from the US News. Both of these sources give dollar amounts and
percentages of the money that is made from college athletics, and where it goes.
Sack, Allen. Should college athletes be paid? Go all amateur, or give them no pro benefits.
6 March 2008. Christian Science Monitor. Web. 8 April 2014.
This article on the Christian Science Monitor website, written by Allen Sack on March 9,
2008, discusses whether or not college athletes should be paid. Sack feels like they should not
be paid for playing, but he gives several exceptions to this reasoning.
This article is intended for those who are interested in this issue. It is more of an opinionated
piece rather than something that just states the facts. There are several pieces of evidence
given throughout the article, including the recent survey done by the NCAA, which shows ethos
and gives credibility to some of the facts that Sack includes (Sack 1). However, much of it is still
Sacks opinion, so it is not an entirely reliable source.
The different ways in which I will be able to use this in my essay is to show what a
former collegiate athlete feels about the issue. He has first-hand experience, and has seen how
Kerr 5

the NCAA has changed since its beginning in 1905. The viewpoint he has will be a lot different
than that of players and coaches now. I will be able to compare and contrast this with the
source from the CBS news that has an interview with Adrian Peterson.
Should NCAA Athletes Be Paid?. Debate Club. March 2013. US News. Web. 19 April 2014.
The article Should Student Athletes Be Paid appeared on usnews.com in March of
2013. It gives a summary of how much money the NCAA makes during March Madness, and
how they do it. This article gives pros and cons as to why NCAA athletes should be paid.
This article is intended for anyone who is concerned about the issue. It has a fair amount
of logos. It gives several numbers and dollar amounts of what the NCAA makes during the big
basketball tournament, which shows the reader that the NCAA is making thousands and
thousands of dollars, but is not giving the players any of it. However, it also argues reasons as to
why the players should not be compensated. The article uses pathos to show the reader that
the athletes have already been given a chance to play a sport they love, and that is
compensation enough (Article 1).
In my essay, I will be able to use this article to give facts about the type of money the
NCAA makes off of the athletes and March Madness, but the players do not personally receive
any money. This article can be compared to the one from the Notre Dame Law Review because
of the numbers they give based on the NCAA revenue.
Adrian Peterson: College Athletes Should Be Paid. Latest Sports. 9 April 2014. CBS Minnesota.
Web. 21 April 2014.
This article appeared on the CBS Minnesota website on April 9, 2014. The first half of
the article is quotes from former NFL player Adrian Peterson about why he believes that college
Kerr 6

athletes should be paid. He not only talks about college football, but also about college
basketball and the requirements for staying in school before moving on to the next level.
The strongest rhetorical strategy in this article is ethos. Peterson is a former NFL player
so he has personal experience with the issue. He says that when he was in college, he
personally brought the school a large amount of revenue with jersey sales and ticket sales
(Article 1). This firsthand experience gives credibility to what he says because he has been
through what the issue is about. The intended audience is those concerned with the issue and
those who read the websites articles.
I will be able to use this in my essay in conjunction with the article by Allen Sacks, who is
also a former collegiate player. However, these two athletes have different views on the
matter. One is for college athletes receiving pay, and the other is against it. This comparison will
help strengthen my paper by having someone who has firsthand experience, but also have
opposite opinions.









Kerr 7

Introduction
The question of whether or not college athletes should be paid is an issue that has been
argued and discussed more and more over the last ten years. Originally, the National Collegiate
Athletic Association was founded in 1905 as a non-profit organization to help regulate college
athletics. Although it meant to keep college athletic contests amateur in its beginnings, some
speculate that it has started learning towards a more professional outlook.
According to a Law Review done by Lee Goldman of Notre Dame University, the NCAA
brings in millions of dollars annually. But they prohibit payments beyond educational
scholarships, and specific expenses, to the athletes who are responsible for producing those
revenues (Goldman 1). College athletes may be the reason for all of the profit, but they are not
allowed to be given any money outside of scholarships. Nevertheless, there are several people
who disagree with this and believe college athletes deserve to be paid because they are the
reason for the influx of earnings. If this were to happen, that would be going against NCAA
regulations. On the other hand, there are people who feel like the system the NCAA has now is
not an issue and there should be no question: college athletes should not be paid. Their
reasoning is the fact that deciding how to pay them would be near impossible. Also, these
players are compensated through scholarships and that is enough.
Summary
The article Should College Athletes Be Paid? written by John Brill, a student at Merrill
College, gives several reasons as to why college athletes should be compensated for playing a
college sport. Brill begins his argument by saying that the National Collegiate Athletic
Association brings in close to $6 billion annually from college basketball and football. This is
Kerr 8

more money than the National Basketball Association earns each year. Brill argues that the
athletes in the NCAA do not receive any monetary compensation for their efforts, unlike the
athletes in the NBA. In order to keep its amateur status, the NCAA would not want to give the
athletes compensation. On the other hand, the NCAA contradicts its claim to amateurism
through the sale of video game licenses, game footage, and game merchandise, all of which
directly profit the school, while the players see none of this money although they are the ones
generating the profit. One may say that these people are student-athletes, and are receiving a
college education while getting to play the sport they love. Nevertheless, Brill says that the
commitment these men and women put towards their respective sport diminishes the
effectiveness of their education.
Allen Sacks, a professor of sports management at the University of New Haven, wrote
an article for the Christian Science Monitor entitled Should college athletes be paid? Go all
amateur, or give them no pro benefits on March 7, 2008. Sacks believes that college players
should not be paid for playing, but he gives several exceptions to this reasoning. He states that
the NCAA was founded in 1905 with the idea to keep collegiate sports amateur. If the NCAA
stuck to the idea that big-time college athletes were amateurs who were participating in
athletic events in their free time, then the claim against paying college athletes would be
supported. Sacks says that when he played football for Notre Dame in 1960, the NCAA had just
given into pressure from the public and began giving out athletic scholarships. Eventually, they
were handed out on a four-year basis. Today, however, scholarships are given year-to-year.
Therefore, they can be taken away if the college decides they made a mistake in recruiting the
player or that player becomes injured. In these cases, the player can possibly be fired. Sacks
Kerr 9

believes that denying athletes medical reimbursements, compensation when they are injured,
and other workers benefits is ethically unacceptable.
Kristi Dosh, an author and sports business reporter for ESPN, wrote an article that was
published in Forbes Magazine on June 9, 2011, entitled The Problems With Paying College
Athletes. Dosh wonders if college athletes were to be paid, where would the money come
from? Her article gives several reasons why paying college athletes would not work. She says
that the NCAA released data that showed only fourteen colleges bring in enough revenue to
pay athletes. Dosh thinks if NCAA athletes were to be paid, only fourteen schools would be able
to do so, giving them an unfair advantage in recruiting. While there are some athletic programs
that make enough money to give back to the school, there are a greater number of schools who
have to rely on separate money from the school to pay for everything. Dosh says that schools
like these do not have the budget to compensate players. Paying players would also go against
certain tax regulations. Other problems that arise are how much to pay athletes, do certain
players for each sport get the same amount, or do the amounts depend on how much money
the sport brings in and how good of an athlete an individual is. Sports other than the big
earners like basketball and football would likely suffer. Womens sports would also have to
bring in greater revenue to compete with that of mens sports.
Political cartoonist Pat Bagley illustrated the relationship between college athletes and
the NCAA in a political cartoon in 2001.
Kerr 10

The photo shows two big, burly
men pulling a fancy car with ropes. These men are labeled as college athletes. There is a flag on
the car that indicates it is owned by the NCAA. The two men are discussing why they have
chosen to pull the car, and if it is worth it.
Source Analysis and Evaluation
In the article Should College Athletes Be Paid? written by John Brill, he uses logos to
explain why college athletes deserve to be paid. Brill states that college football and basketball
generate more money than the NBA, a total of more than $6 billion annually (Brill 1). This use of
logos shows how much money the NCAA makes off of their athletic events. Brill continues to
use logos later when he brings in the fact that the coach at the University of Texas makes more
money annually than the school gives to football players in scholarships (Brill 3). Brill shows that
the coach makes more money than is given to student-athletes. This use of logos supports the
idea that colleges would have plenty of money to compensate their athletes. The author does a
wonderful job at using logos when he brings the other side of the argument into his article. He
says that the athletes are students first, as they are called student-athletes. Brill goes on to say
Kerr 11

that all though they may be student-athletes, often times their athletics come before their
academics (Brill 4). This use of logos helps him prove the other side is incorrect, therefore
making his point stronger.
However, Brill oversimplifies this issue. In the article written by Kristi Dosh entitled The
Problems With Paying College Athletes, Dosh says that only fourteen programs earn enough to
pay their athletes (Dosh 3).
Throughout Doshs article, she uses logos as she asks rhetorical questions to show how
the paying of college athletes is a task that is unfeasible and impossible. Dosh says that
released data showing that only 14 programs are turning a profit without having to rely on
institutional support (like student fees or a check cut directly from the university coffers) (Dosh
3). This statement shows that it would logically be impossible to pay college athletes because
not every institution has the financial means to do so.
Sacks uses ethos by bringing up past situations with the NCAA back from when he
played football for Notre Dame in the 1960s. He once was a college athlete, so he has personal
experience with the issue. However, this article is more of an opinionated piece rather than a
factual argument. There are parts of the article, though, including the recent survey done by
the NCAA, which demonstrate ethos and give some credibility to the facts that he includes
(Sacks 7).
The political cartoon, done by Pat Bagley, uses logos to show why college athletes
should be compensated for their play. The two men are leaned forward, showing the effort it is
taking them to pull the car. The man on the left says that they are receiving nothing in return
for all of their hard work and asks the other why they are pulling the car (Bagley 1). This
Kerr 12

illustrates to the reader that college athletes do so much for the NCAA, and bring in so much
money, yet they feel like they are given nothing in return. The man on the right says they are
doing it for education, but Im not feeling to smart right now (Bagley 1). Although college
athletes do get a college education in return for playing for a certain school, this sometimes is
not enough. It is not ethical for college athletes to do so much for their sport and obtain a
lower-level education because most of their time is focused on their sport.
Commentary
The question of whether or not to pay college athletes has been an issue debated from
both sides for years. From my research, I had a hard time finding articles and evidence
supporting the no answer to this question. Most of the articles are in favor of paying college
athletes. All of the articles supporting this answer give sufficient proof to sway the reader to
their side. Logos is the most prominent way in which the authors of these articles have shown
their side. One of the most common used facts used is how much money the NCAA earns each
year. Brill, Sacks, and Bagley all illustrate this. Brill discusses how the NCAA brings in more
money annually than the NBA does (Brill 1). With this kind of money, Brill, as well as Sacks and
Bagley, think that colleges would have more than enough money to compensate their athletes.
Conversely, in saying that the NCAA brings in close to $6 billion each year, Brill oversimplifies
the issue. Just because, overall, the NCAA makes that much money, that does not mean every
college in the NCAA is earning sufficient funds to pay their athletes. Dosh gives evidence which
refutes the idea that all college athletic programs have the means to compensate their players
financially. She says that a survey was done by the NCAA to see how many colleges really were
in a situation where they could pay athletes without having any problems. There are only
Kerr 13

fourteen schools turning out a profit without having to rely on institutional support (like
student fees or a check cut directly from the university coffers) (Dosh 3). If this is the case, it
would not be possible for the NCAA to change their rules so college athletes were to be paid.
Yes, there would be some schools like Alabama, the University of Texas, Florida, and Tennessee,
as well as other college sports power-houses that would be able to do so. However, there are a
greater number of universities and schools that do not make the kind of profit necessary to pay
players without borrowing money from other sources. Dosh continues her argument with more
than five other questions that show how paying college athletes would not be feasible.
Pita Tonga, a high school football player who has been recruited to play football for the
University of Utah, believes that college football players should be paid. In a recent interview,
he said the money brought in from the football program is the majority of the schools
income/budget. Later in the interview, he continued in saying people come to watch the
players hit each other and risk injuring themselves for life soooooooooo yeah they should be
paid. Tonga does bring up some good points, especially about how a schools football program
can generated a large amount of a universitys income. But what about the rest of the schools
in the NCAA that are not in the same boat? What about the ones that do not generate enough
money to pay athletes? If a few colleges were to start paying their athletes, then all colleges
would have to follow suit, which is almost impossible for some to do.
There are even more issues centered on paying college athletes. One of them is if
athletes were paid, how much would they earn? Would players on the big-earning mens
football and basketball teams make more money than womens soccer or softball? Womens
sports do not bring in as much revenue as mens. If pay were to be based upon the amount of
Kerr 14

money brought in by each sport, this would be unfair to sports that do not earn as much.
According to Dosh, this would interfere with Title IX, a federal law. It states that there must be
gender equality for both boys and girls in any educational program that receives funding from
the federal government. This means that girls who play college field hockey would have to be
paid the same amount as the starting quarterback on the football team.
Now, some people would still say that although college athletes receive scholarships,
they are almost a slave to their sport, leaving hardly any time for school work. An image that
appeared on otherwords.org depicts a college basketball player chained to a basketball like he
is imprisoned. This is showing that playing a college sport
can be burdensome, and trap athletes, causing them to be unable to complete their school
work to the same level as someone who is a regular student. Because of this, some think that
student-athletes should be paid to play.
This argument is invalid. Every single college athlete chooses to continue playing their
sport. They knew it would still be their responsibility to stay on top of their school work.
Although they may have less free time than the average student, this does not mean they
should be paid.
College athletes already have advantages over other college students, which make the
argument of paying college athletes less appealing. In an article by Paul Daughetry, he brings in
Kerr 15

the fact that college athletes have special tutors to help them with all of their classes, free of
charge. This is an unfair advantage to the average college student. They have the same
educational responsibilities as athletes, but they do not have someone there to walk them
through their homework and essays.
Conclusion
Although paying college athletes seems like it would be a good idea with a simple
solution, there are many issues surrounding it that would make it near impossible to do so.
Also, college athletes are often referred to as student-athletes. This title comes from the fact
that they are students who have the opportunity to continue playing the sport they love in
college, a higher level of competition than they have ever participated in. They are able to carry
on something they love, while receiving a college education. This is oftentimes paid for through
scholarships. College athletes are already compensated enough for representing their schools
in their respective competitions. If they were also paid to play, this would be unfair to the other
thousands of students at every university in the country.








Kerr 16

Works Cited
Bagley, Pat. College athletes heavy load. Cartoon. theweek.com. Cagle Cartoons, 2011. Web.
13 May 2014.
Brill, John. Should College Athletes be Paid?. Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism.
University of Maryland. Web. 19 April 2014.
Dosh, Kristi. The Problems With Paying College Athletes. Sports Money. Forbes. Web. 12 May
2014.
Sack, Allen. Should college athletes be paid? Go all amateur, or give them no pro benefits.
6 March 2008. Christian Science Monitor. Web. 8 April 2014.
Goldman, Lee. Sports and Antitrust: Should College Students Be Paid to Play?. 65 Notre Dame
L. Rev. 1989-1990. HeinOnline. Web. 21 April 2014.
Should NCAA Athletes Be Paid?. Debate Club. March 2013. US News. Web. 19 April 2014.
Adrian Peterson: College Athletes Should Be Paid. Latest Sports. 9 April 2014. CBS Minnesota.
Web. 21 April 2014.
Daughetry, Paul. College athletes already have advantages and shouldnt be paid. Viewpoint.
20 January 2012. Sports Illustrated. 13 May 2014.
College athletics: the unmistakable whiff of the plantation. Cartoon. Otherwords.org. 2010.
Web. 13 May 2014.
Tonga, Pita. Personal interview. 14 May 2014.