I always hear about how NCAA college athletes need to be paid because so much money is being made off of them. I also hear that universities are under investigation for giving their athletes free cars, apartments, cash, gifts, plus giving them fake easy courses to pass so they can stay in school. Not to mention athletes are given a free college education and get all the women they want. Is that not enough of a benefit? The star athletes will get special treatment and be treated like kings on campus, getting loads of free stuff while they’re in school for one year before they go to the pros to make millions and the lesser players get a free college education which basically amounts to around $25,000 a year for playing a sport. I don’t see why there’s a need for additional compensation here, am I wrong? -- Diana from Laredo, Texas
You’re right that college athletes who play Division I football and basketball do get a lot of benefits and perks. The reason people think they don’t get enough is because of the sheer amount of money that is generated from the games. Yes, when compared to other students and other athletes of crappy sports that no one watches, they do already get a lot. However, when you consider the millions and millions of dollars made from them, it becomes an issue of how big of a slice schools and companies are taking. Right now it’s 100% vs 0% and a lot of people think the players should be getting some of that. People think they should be getting paid for the same reason we think a shortstop in Major League Baseball should be making 25 million dollars a year. It doesn’t make sense in the context of reality, but within the context of the league they play in and the revenue created by the league, that is what’s deemed appropriate. It’s more a matter of a fair share of a fortune than proper compensation for playing a game.
|If you pay college athletes, you should pay them all and no one in their right mind is going to pay lacrosse players.|
Have a question? Send it to PizzaTesticles@yahoo.com