Lupe Valle ’20
It is 8 p.m. on a Friday night and I’m sitting (more like nuzzled under thick blankets, replenishing my body with heat that was lost from the freezing temperatures I just forced myself to walk through) on my Rugby big sib’s bed when I ask:
“Should college athletes be paid?”I do not articulate a specific division or sport for which college athletes should be paid when I ask this question, but I still hear many people answer…
“Colleges capitalize on athletes. They are dehumanized and seen as a commodity, but are not given the time for academics and family. You need a stipend after being admitted into a new league, especially during the year. Colleges are pro athletics at the Division 1 level and sports advertise the college that athletes are playing for.”
While all this is relatively true for a majority of athletes, especially of those playing football in schools like Alabama and Michigan (who bring in an annual revenue twice the value of what they spend for the season), I must be the devil’s advocate and say, “No, colleges should absolutely not pay their athletes, because there is always a student in need of financial aid at the schools that generate most of their income from sports. If a college capitalizes on an athlete’s performance in a game then the money earned should be sourced to financial aid needs for all students. Students, parents and large, public, Division I league schools need to remember that a good education is not a privilege, it is a right for everyone, so the financial needs of students should be taken into consideration when deciding where the revenue from a college athlete’s performance in a game goes to.