The argument is that universities need to keep players unionization efforts out of court because they don't need to lose public credibility on top of financial loss. Players will win over some of the moral requests that protect their health and livelihood moving forward.
The counter-argument is simple. These are students, not athletes. Earning a degree is why they choose college, and it is their ultimate decision to do so.
https://star.txstate.edu/node/660
This article states,"Additionally, if universities paid college athletes, it would make the disparity between large and small university athletic teams even greater. Larger schools with more revenue such like University of Texas would essentially be able to buy out the best players for their teams, putting smaller universities at a greater disadvantage. College sports and the athletes who participate in them should not be centered on money. "
Privatization does make for equality, you argue that students should not have equality in the financial payout of their respective sports. Therefore why does the Universiity of South Alabama deserve to be on an equal playing field with the University Alabamaif it is not in either financiall or competitive terms.
I can agree on how valuable this scholarship is, but the value of mantaining the academic mission to promote graduation amongst "student- athletes" is unmatchable and the ability to do so lies within sharing revenue to imporve the game and the lives of its players.
No comments:
Post a Comment