Summary of the First Article
In the article “The Case Against Paying College Athletes” Alden Abbott believes that college athletes shouldn’t be getting paid since the current NCAA system already provides a good enough way to make them use their money for good purposes and can help them want to reach a higher level to be able to make it to a professional level and, in a way, to help keep the importance of education while being a star athlete. Abbott explains that most athletes are provided housing, and any other expenses the athlete may have, and he sees this as a better way to give them enough money to not be exploiting them. He opposes the argument that college athletes are underpaid by stating that, “not clear that college athletes, who are compensated with scholarships and living expenses, are materially ‘underpaid’.” (Abbott). Abbott also argues that if they were to receive direct payments from colleges, they would increase the financial burden on the universities, which could have the effect of having to get rid of other smaller or non-profit sports programs taking away other people’s opportunities. According to his article it can reduce the number of athletes that didn’t partake in high profile sports like football and basketball. Abbott also suggested that paying players could shift college athletics more like a professional model, and that would weaken the importance of education and the student’s development, making them only focus and care about their sport, and not their education. He emphasizes that NCAA’s rules are a way to make athletics remain important with their education instead of just becoming an athlete that plays for money, making them not care as much for the sport or their performance, making them less as players. Abbott concludes that having some restraint on their salary helps benefit the athletes and the fans, even saying that these rules, “should remain, for good of fans and college athletes.” (Abbott). Overall, Abbott wants us to keep the structure that we already used for so long and has constantly shown the benefits to help protect the education priorities, and while still improving their athletic capabilities.
Summary of the Second Article
According to Cynthia Mayes’ article, “Op-Ed: Why College Athletes Deserve to Be Paid”, there is an unfair disparity between college athletic systems that generate an incredible amount of revenue and with the lack of compensation for athletes. College athletes are not compensated, whereas colleges, coaches, and the NCAA, all receive a really generous amount of benefits from the institution and its athletes. Although Mayes points out scholarships can assist in the education aspect of sports, they can’t help with living conditions and any financial problems that aren’t school related, making it difficult for many of these individuals who come from families that are less fortunate and are in the low-income families, as well as with paying overhead for themselves, and their families while putting most of their effort into their sport while making the university a lot of profit. She also considers that NIL, (Name, Image, and Likeness), deals make it more reasonable, but they aren’t consistent and only help with a small percent of high-profile athletes, rather than helping all the players. Mayes contradicts the traditional idea of amateurism in college sports, contending that the athletes function more like laborers in a major industry than being students that are unpaid participating in a hobby. She continues her argument by implying that college athletes do intense physical activities and commit a lot of their time into their sports, often not having enough time to get a part-time job or have normal student experiences since they’re too busy practicing to be better, yet they are still getting limited financial support. According to Mayes, “Colleges athletes deserve to be paid-not just through scholarships or NIL deals, but with real, regulated compensation” (Mayes), because they bring in a lot of profit to the college and universities and having them pay the athletes a more just among would make them feel more recognized and make it seem less like they are the laborers.
Point of Agreement
Alden Abbott and Cynthia Mayes do not agree all together, but they do have some mutual agreements. They both agree that college athletes create a huge profit for the universities and play a major role in the financial system. Both Mayes and Abbott recognize that the college sports, especially the more entertaining and popular ones like football and basketball bring in a great amount of revenue from their game ticket sales, fan support, and merch sales, which is essential to the universities financial success. Abbott says, “The NCAA has its reasons for keeping its rules against paying college athletes. These should remain, for the good of fans and college athletes” (Abbott), his quote doesn’t directly say that the athletes make a huge amount of money for the universities, but it shows that he knows that the athletes do by saying their reasons why they aren’t paid even though they make a lot of money for the universities. Mayes states, “For decades, the NCAA profited while the athletes who powered its billion-dollar industry” (Mayes), showing that she recognizes how much revenue the college athletes rake in for them. Both authors also recognise how important the scholarships' roles play in the compensation system. Mayes argues that the scholarships help but still leave them stressed because they don’t always cover living expenses. Abbott about how the athletes get a great number of education benefits that distinguish them from typical laborers. Another thing they see eye to eye is how much effort and time the athletes commit into their sports. Mayes says, “They’ve earned it-with every sprint, every injury, every game-day performance” (Mayes), proving that she sees how hard they work. Abbott doesn’t plainly state this, but he shows it by acknowledging that college athletes have competed for years under the NCAA rules, and their ongoing participation is essential to the systems’ success which implies how committed they are.
Points of Disagreement
Even though Cynthia mayes and Alden Abbott both talk about how important college athletes are, they have very different points of view on whether or not the athletes should be paid. Abbott argues that universities and athletes are better off leaving the system they used for years because it has shown success, and we shouldn’t risk changing it. Abbott says that “should remain, for the good of fans and college athletes” (Abbott). Mayes on the other hand believes that the athletes should be paid and aren’t receiving enough compensation for their efforts. Mayes states, “College athletes deserve to be paid—not just through scholarships or name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals—but with real, regulated compensation” (Mayes).
Strengths of Source #1
A big strength that Abbott exercises in his article is how consistent and clear he is. He is consistent with his position against paying the athletes. Abbott explains clearly how the system the universities use with athletes currently works well and shows the problems that would come with changing the system to give athletes a bigger pay. Another thing he does well is focusing on the reason for centering on education and wanting better student development. He uses a good point in his argument that the system prioritizes their education purpose. He points out how their scholarships help the athletes to keep their focus on education and not to just treat it like a professional league that’s just about making money. In his whole article he uses a lot of logical reasoning about the university’s consequences. An example is when he talks about how paying athletes would affect other athletes beyond the top athletes from the popular sports and could take huge cuts from smaller sports like their wrestling and track hurting other athletes just because it is not as popular.
Strength of Source #2
Mayes had many strengths, but the main one that stuck out to me is how she acknowledges the financial struggles many less fortunate athletes face. She talks about how even with scholarships for some athletes it still isn’t enough to cover all their housing costs or their day to day living expenses since most are time strained to their sport and how much time it consumes from the athletes. Mayes other strength is arguing about whether or not the system the universities have for athletes is exploiting them since they enjoy a lot of the income that the athletes produce making them look more like laborers than athletes.
Weaknesses of Source #1
Although Abbott has a lot of strengths, no one is perfect, and he has some weaknesses in his argument. Abbott's biggest weakness in his writing is his continuous assumption that scholarships cover enough of financial expenses without acknowledging that athletes still struggle to afford their living expenses, food, and one that wants to try to help their family financially. Another weakness is the lack of voice from an athlete’s perspective. He mainly focused on the perspectives of the university and the fans and rarely includes the actual voices of the players, which makes his argument feel one sided.
Weaknesses of Source #2
Mayes had a great argument, but she lacked solutions to fix the system that she thinks is exploiting the athletes. Mayes argues that athletes should be paid, but never goes into detail about how they should instead be paid and how much an athlete should be paid. She doesn’t explain if they would get paid based on their abilities or anything and doesn’t talk about how schools with less money would be able to afford that. Another weakness in her article is her focus on only popular sports like football and basketball, giving little to no attention to how athletes that their sport doesn’t bring in as much money or any at all would be able to afford their living expenses
Compromise
Overall, the big debate of whether or not college athletes should be paid or not isn’t so simple as to say yes or no since both sides have many great points. Abbott is right about making the athletes keep focused on their education while playing sports. Mayes is also correct to point out how athletes in high revenue sports should have better compensation than just their scholarships. I think it’s better to compromise with both rather than just to plainly say yes or no. A good compromise I think would work is, maintaining scholarships so that athletes in sports that produce less revenue can still receive help, but allowing more programs like the NIL to expand opportunities and make them receive more money. This way they can continue both sports that are high revenue and low revenue without affecting any athletes and can keep their education as a main focus. By trying to balance financial fairness and keeping educational priorities, colleges would have a much better system to support all athletes and make it seem less exploitative.
By: Jacob Contreras
Works Cited
Abbott, Alden. “The Case Against Paying College Athletes.” The Daily Economy, 17 Apr. 2025, thedailyeconomy.org/article/the-case-against-paying-college-athletes/?
Mayes, Cynthia. “Op-Ed: Why College Athletes Deserve to Be Paid | Four Point Zero Sports | 4.O Sports.” Fourpointzerosports.org, 29 May 2025, www.fourpointzerosports.org/op-ed-why-college-athletes-deserve-to-be-paid/.
I like the way you explain both sides clearly and I like your compromise at the end because it feels realistic and fair to both athletes and universities.
ReplyDelete