Paying College Athletes? That's Just Wrong

The issue... any why the $0 is much better than it seems

In case you have not been following, the big-time business of college sports is just getting bigger and bigger. You thought the numbers were outrageous before? Last month, ESPN signed a $5.6 million deal over 12 years for the rights to televise the first college football championship playoff, a new system put in place to achieve a clearer champion and, of course, more money.¹ In 2011, CBS shoveled over $10.8 billion to the NCAA to ensure that every game of the NCAA men’s basketball championship tournament from 2011 until 2024 will be televised on their network.² With the money from these astronomical television deals, the NCAA is bringing in nearly $850 million in revenue per year, at least as of 2010-11.³ Because of these ludicrous deals and high income for the NCAA, more and more people are stepping out to proclaim that this system is not fair and needs to be fixed. They declare that a business model such as the NCAA, which brings in so much money yet does not share ANY of it with the athletes who are the core source of that revenue, is unethical and unjust. However, as much as these advocates believe they are supporting not only justice but the athletes’ best interest when calling for a pay-for-play system, they are wrong. Scholarships, unfair advantages, and logistics all demonstrate why paying student athletes would not only be a great injustice, but also a huge mistake…

When first looking into this issue, it is easiest and probably most common to side with the athletes who are breaking their backs to meet the rigorous demands of playing a Division I college sport, yet are seeing any monetary rewards for their work swallowed by their schools and the NCAA. Still, a closer look always pays a clearer picture.

For every athlete demanding a paycheck, there are 10 deserving
non-athletes who can't afford to walk in the door,
or who are departing college with
“a five-figure yoke around [their] neck.”

First and foremost, while these athletes do not receive compensation in the form of weekly stipends, they do receive one major reward that, especially today, is becoming more valuable than any amount of paychecks: a college scholarship. Many of these Division I athletes are attending school on a full scholarship, meaning they will not need to pay for any tuition, housing, books, or related costs. A college degree, fully funded by playing hours upon hours of the sport they love. That is such a tremendous opportunity for so many people and is seriously overlooked by people who claim the athletes are not fairly compensated. Receiving a college degree today is nearly invaluable, not only in the literal sense where some students and their families have to pay over $50,000 a year for education, even at public universities,⁴ but also because “those [who receive] bachelor’s degrees earn an average of nearly $1 million more over their lifetimes than those with only high school diplomas.”⁵ Countless numbers of people would go to extreme lengths for the privilege of attending college and receiving a college education, but never get the opportunity. Many students, in fact, fulfill “whatever means necessary” to help them obtain their degree, often times incurring humongous debts from student loans and departing college with “a five-figure yoke around [their] neck.”⁶ The incalculable worth of a college experience is thus the ultimate compensation for student athletes, especially when they get to attend for free and leave with no debt and are awarded with career plans for life after sports. Anyone asking for anything more is just greedy.

The next strongest argument against paying college athletes is that there is no fair or intelligent method to actually pay the players. Not only does this task present a logistical nightmare, but some are in line to be left out of the pot to receive pay for their play, causing an unfair advantage for some athletes. Many questions arise from these issues. How would the money be distributed? Are all players paid the same flat income, or is pay based on performance? Is the star of the team paid the same amount as the bench warmer? It seems it would be unfair to pay two athletes who work just as hard different amounts, but on the other hand why pay someone who does not play.⁶ Another major question revolves around whether or not every sport would enact a pay-for-play system. The only true revenue-generating sports are big-time football and men’s basketball programs, and just because they produce revenue does not mean they are profitable. Does that mean that the swimmers, soccer players, rowers, track stars, and everyone else would still work the same demanding, overwhelming hours, yet not receive the paychecks that the football and basketball players do? ⁶ Paying some athletes but not others is definitely injustice.

To pay? Or not to pay?

And how would the NCAA even expect the schools to afford paying their athletes. Not every school is a Michigan, Texas, or Florida: out of 125 Division 1 programs, 22 are cash flow even or cash flow positive. ⁷ Forcing schools to pay student athletes in this situation would only further fracture an already broken business model. Diverting money from the non-revenue sports, which consists of pretty much every sport besides basketball and football, in order to pay the athletes who help bring in money would not leave enough money to operate these non-revenue sports, causing an eventual elimination of all other sports and an enormous injustice to thousands of athletes across the country.⁶ Furthermore, the 22 programs that would be able to afford to pay their athletes and maintain their athletic programs would come to absolutely dominate college athletics, attracting the best recruits thanks to being able promise players pay for their play, and actually fielding a full athletics program. Any way you cut it, enacting a pay-for-play system in college sports would only create injustice by awarding an advantage to a small few, a prospect which would anger many justice theorists and none more than Jeremy Bentham.  

Jeremy Bentham was a justice theorist who is credited with creating modern utilitarianism and lived his life based on the principle that justice was determined by finding the “greatest good for the greatest amount of people.”⁸ And question of justice could be answered by seeing with decision yielded the most happiness. Like many of his fellow justice theorists, Bentham believed that the benefits of the few should not outweigh, or be taken before, the more spread out benefits of the many. It is thus easy to see where Bentham would have swayed on the issue of paying college athletes. In a pay for play system, basketball and football players would no doubt enjoy the monetary compensation they receive. However, this would come at a cost to countless others, from other student athletes who work as hard as these players but are not paid and whose non-revenue sports are threatened by the lack of money available, to the athletic programs who have to pay these athletes, to the fellow students who not only have to pay to attend school but now have to watch as some of those who get to come for free now get paychecks in addition, to… the list goes on and on. The happiness of the few, salaried student athletes is far outweighed by the overall displeasure of, well, just about everyone else, making a pay-for-play system in college athletics clearly unjust.

Justice most often demands a solution that produces not only a moral and ethical conclusion, but that also creates the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, as Jeremy Bentham so strongly believes. In the issue of whether or not college athletes should be paid to play college sports, this concept of justice clearly calls for not paying the student athletes. Paying these athletes would garner a great happiness from the players who did receive payment; however, a great majority of college athletes would find themselves at an unfair disadvantage, working just as hard but not getting paid. The transfer of funds to the pockets of the players would also jeopardize the futures of the non-revenue sports, which would have trouble competing for dollars, as well as giving these athletes another reward in addition to the already invaluable college education they receive for free.

College sports is supposed to be about passion, faith, and loyalty.. not money.

Paying college athletes is a very bad idea. It is unethical, unjust, hurts more people than it helps, and threatens all that we know and love about college sports today with a threat to become professional. Justice is better served by maintaining the status quo, where no athletes receive any monetary compensation but compete for faith, passion, and loyalty. The current system gives each athlete an equal chance to succeed and does not give any unfair advantages. You think paying college athletes is a good idea? That’s just wrong. 

Carl Scheller

[1] Bachman, Rachel. “College Football's Big-Money, Big-Risk Business Model.” The Wall Street Journal. online.wsj.com, n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

[2] Wilbon, Michael. "College athletes deserve to be paid." ESPN. espn.go.com, n.d. Web. 18 July 2011.

[3] "NCAA revenue breakdown: 2010-11." NCAA. ncaa.org, n.d. Web.

[4] "Cost of Attendance." University of Michigan Office of Financial Aid. finaid.umich.edu, n.d. Web.

[5] Strauss, Valerie. "The value of a college degree vs. the debt it takes to earn It." The Washington Post. washingtonpost.com, n.d. Web. 1 November 2012

[6] Johnson, Dennis A. “Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes.” United States Sports Academy. Thesportjournal.com, n.d. Web.

[7] Keteyian, Armen. “Has college football become a campus commodity?” CBS News: 60 Minutes. cbsnews.com, n.d. Web. 18 November 2012

[8] Bentham, Jeremy. "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation." Library Of Economics and Liberty. econlib.org, n.d. Web.

Pro-Choice is the Right Choice

  Abortion is one of the most intimate, political and social controversies that twists popular culture and ultimately has the country divided. Abortion is a question of morality and decision making, and to some, that does not involve the legal system or government I stand with the pro-choice movement; moreover, I argue that justice  demands that the government nor society have any in the women's decision to terminate a pregnancy and I do not believe the arguments provided by pro-life adovcates is legitimate or justified in the slightest.

USING A LIBERTARIAN VIEW TO JUSTIFY PRO-CHOICE

In my english class, we have studied many conceptions of justice and I believe the conception presented by Robert Nozick completely supports and substantiates my pro-choice adovacy.  I hold that he argues for individual rights and demands that it is not permissble for the state or government to use coercive power to enforce societys' collective morality. The woman is entitled to her reproductive rights and choice and this is a right that should be kept sacred. It is a question of her morality and her decision. Nozick demands no moralist legislation or no paternalist legislation. In simple terms, this mean government stay out and mind your business!

FETUS:PERSON ENTITLED TO RIGHTS?

The major and most controvesial debate regarding abortion is whether or not the fetus is deemed human and alive at contraception or entitled to personhood rights. Pro-life advocates use this to be their overall argument winner. Because they claim the fetus is entitled to the right of life and it is inhumane to kill it,it is their belief the act of abortion is murder and ultimately should be punishable and made illegal under the law. Moreover in their opinion, abortion disregards the virtue of the human life. In their opinion science “proves” that human life begins with contraception and the Constitution, the Fifth Amendment, entrusts that “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Since murder and the act of taking another's life is punishable under the law,why is abortion any different? It is this central debate of whether or not the human embryo is alive or not,furthermore every scientist or physician has a different answer. HOWEVER,in spite of this, my fellow pro-life supporters ,there has been no national advetisement or irrefutable evidence or what have you that proves that the fetus is indeed alive at contraception. I believe this argument is extremely vague and has no actually legitimacy. In addition, read this article that further supports the ambiguity of the pro-life argument involving the fetus. I also recognize that pro life advocates can make the same claim, because the fetus has not been deemed not alive at contraception, it is not inhumane to kill it(this would be the counter argument to mine). It is the simple ambiguity and vagueness that makes the argument so contradicting and provides no proof of anything at all. 

RELIGION AS AN ARGUMENT?

Some pro-life advocates claim that religion is another substantial claim for abortion being illegal. They claim that abortion is sinful and does not coincide with God's law. Well America was founded with the separation of church and state,but somehow religion has snuck its way into every single social and political reform. Religious ideology is no foundation for any law. And that argument goes out of the window.

WHY ABORTION IS NECESSARY

The pro-life movement ignores the cases where abortion is not necessarily a decision of terminating a pregnancy but a life or death decision. While researching I came across the pro choice America website and I found many testimonials and stories regarding women's decisions to terminate their pregnancies. After reading countless stories, it only solidified in my mind that the government and society should not be involved in abortion.

The Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973 with its decision in Roe v. Wade. What did women do before then? Rosalyn Levy Jonas, a pro-choice leader and chair of NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation's board of directors, shares her story.[1]

KATHY, 37

At one point in time, I was very pro-life and couldn't imagine who would ever get an abortion. Then came the day that I learned I was pregnant. I didn't choose to become pregnant—I had been raped. I struggled deciding what was right for me. Ultimately, I chose to abort. It was during those weeks that I decided pro-choice was the way to go. People can preach what they want; until you are actually in a situation, you will never understand. I do not regret my choice and will fight to keep choice legal. [2]

MARIA, 27

I've never needed an abortion, but if I were to become pregnant I would be forced to choose between having an abortion to survive, or dying with my unborn fetus. I have a health issue that makes it impossible for me to carry a pregnancy to term. Because of this, I use multiple forms of birth control and I'm always very careful when I'm with my partner, but I harbor a constant fear that someday I will have to make this choice—and if that time comes, will it be my choice to make?[3]

KATIE, 28

This story is about my great grandma Josephine and why I am pro choice. I have always been pro choice and believe what we choose to do with our bodies is nobody else’s concern. But the story of my grandma Jo cuts to the heart of why abortion must be kept safe and legal. My grandma became pregnant in 1948 with her second pregnancy. 12 weeks into the pregnancy she became very ill and went to the doctor. He explained her fetus had died and was rotting inside her causing mass infection. He told her it was illegal to treat this condition and she would soon face death. Shocked and terrified she left the office. A nurse followed her out and handed her a slip of paper with no name just a number. The nurse said, "I did not give you this." Grandma went home and called the number. A man answered an only said "Give me an address I will be there at midnight." Midnight arrived and a man came carrying a medical bag and a bucket. He told her to lie on her dining room table and open her legs. He performed the procedure right there. Four years later my grandfather was born. I would not be here today if it were not for a nurse with a slip of paper and an unknown man. He never charged my grandma a cent. But we owe him everything. Protect Roe v. Wade!!! [4]

These are only a few of hundreds of stories from women who had to make the decision to have an abortion not because they do not want the child, it is because of rape, or ectopic pregnancies, or complications with health or the fetus. A lot of these circumstances that call for abortion would result in death if that option were not available. Moreover there are children who are born from unwanted pregnancies but grow up in orphanages. The point I am getting at is that women never know what they would do unless they are put in these extenuating circumstances. Once one encounters certain stories and certain circumstances, one's outlook could change. This is the danger of the single story. Pro-life advocates preach about saving the lives of the unborn child. But I doubt that any of these women have experienced medical complications that could cause harm to them or their baby if they were to carry out a pregnancy. You never know what you would do unless actually put in this situation(check out this blog for more information)

RAISE AWARENESS:PROTECT ROE V.WADE
Obviously, I am sure after reading this blog that many pro-life advocates will disregard every word I typed and discredit every argument. In addition, I am sure they will not miraculously convert so to speak to pro-choice. However, with this post, I aim to raise awareness of what Roe vs. Wade entailed and what is called for when it was originally established. Roe vs Wade extended a woman's decision to have an abortion, focusing on protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Moreover,it does not allow state and federal legislations to put restrictions on abortion. Pro-life advocates and those who object abortion should realize that religion, laws, "persons", and misplaced moral outrage do not belong in the uterus. It is the women's choice, that's why pro choice is the right choice.

[1]http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/womens-voices/womens-stories/rosalyn.html

[2]http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/womens-voices/womens-stories/kathy-37.html

[3]http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/womens-voices/womens-stories/maria-27.html

[4]http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/womens-voices/womens-stories/katie-28.html

You Can't Drink That

YOU CAN'T DRINK THAT!

Mayor, or "Nanny," Bloomberg is mocked in the photo above for
 telling adults what they can or can't consume. [9]

 On September 13th, 2012, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the rest of the New York City Health Board imposed a large-scale soda ban on the people living in the city.  Specifically, people in New York City will no longer be able to purchase sweetened drinks in cups that hold over 16 ounces. This includes soda, energy drinks, and iced tea. [1] The ultimate goal of the ban is to promote healthier lifestyles and limit obesity among all people in New York City. Restaurants that fail to cooperate with these restrictions will be given hefty fines by the city government. However, is this whole ban really fair to citizens of a free country? The United States prides itself on making it a right that people's personal liberties aren't infringed upon. This is why the soda ban should be removed immediately. 

Just because unhealthy sodas aren't allowed doesn't 
mean people won't substitute it with more ice cream. [10]

The soda ban pushes the limitations of constitutionality in our country. It raises so much controversy due to the fact that citizens feel that they are losing some of their basic rights. Beverage industries are already bursting with rage toward the mayor’s new ban. For example, a newly formed group known as "New Yorkers for Beverage Choices" has already raised over 1 million dollars on a public relations campaign against the ban. [1] Also, economic research has been done to show that soda consumers will now be spending up to 20% more a year on soda. [2] This leads to an even tougher economic struggle for lower class families who are already having a tough time. 

Mayor Michael Bloomberg may counter the argument by saying that he is doing the most good for the most people. In other words, he may speak from the perspective of John Mill. Mill is a political theorist who promotes Utilitarianism, or doing the most good for the largest number of people. [3] According to a recent study, over 50% of adults living in New York City are suffering from obesity.[2] Bloomberg could support his decision by saying that most people are obese in NYC, therefore he would help the most people by enforcing the ban. He could argue that the ban would cause the majority of the population to be more healthy. People on this argument may justify their stance by saying that these personal liberties must be altered in order for the most good to be done. 

George Will Attacks Mayor Bloomberg's remarks on the soda ban [4]

While that may seem plausible at first, it is necessary that we take a step back for a minute. This country prides itself on 3 main values: Life, LIBERTY, and property. The value of "liberty" is essential to our country's morale. Mayor Bloomberg was quoted in the video to the left stating, "We are not taking away anyone's right to do things, we're simply forcing you to understand." [4] To me this quote is preposterous and makes absolutely no sense. He is forcing the people to do something by removing their personal rights. Why is it acceptable for the government to tell me that I can't consume a sugary beverage if I want too? Grown people in this country should be left with the responsibility to make their own choices when it comes down to health. 

You can smoke pot, but you can't drink that soda.
Seems ethical right? [12]

There have been very few instances in the past where citizens' personal liberties have been infringed upon. However, when it does occur, they have all been for much more serious matters than the...soda ban. For example, after the 9/11 attacks the PATRIOT Act was   established. This act interefered with personal liberties because it allowed the government to have easier access to tapping phone calls or accessing financial records. [5] However, the PATRIOT Act was in response to devastating terrorist attacks. [5] Mayor Bloomberg is shortening freedoms so that people can't drink soda. Does this seem logical? 

Another aspect up for much debate with the soda ban is how Mayor Bloomberg is utilizing his power.  Mayor Bloomberg, creating an unfair advantage without representation of those that are affected most, personally selects the members of the NYC Health Board. [7] This aspect of the ban causes much controversy amongst the people because they feel it is unjust and that Mayor Bloomberg is abusing his power. Mayor Bloomberg may argue that it was the citizens of New York City that elected him at first. Therefore, he could argue that he is a form of indirect representation for the middle and lower class.

Nanny Bloomberg [13]

However, what the Mayor is doing now with his power is completely unjust! My plan of action would be to innovate some way that the people of New York City could acquire fair representation. One possibility would be to have an elected group of lower/middle class citizens present at Health Board meetings to voice their opinions. If the people were to gain some kind of representation, it would make power less of a factor in establishing unjust bans like this one. John Rawls would argue that the action taken should be the one that provides the most benefit to the least advantaged persons. This goal is unrealistic and impossible if the least advantaged persons don't even have a voice that can be heard. [8] For Rawls's goal to be accomplished some kind of representation would have to be rewarded for citizens with no political power. 

The soda ban has brought about many injustices such as: no representation for lower/middle class citizens, abusing political power by Mayor Bloomberg, and infringement upon people's personal liberties. In order to quickly rid NYC of these flaws, there needs to be a plan of action. My plan of action would consist of a new way to ensure the people fair representation. By gaining fair representation, the claims of "is justice just power" would be greatly reduced. As the Athenians showed in the "Melian Dialogue," power can get you what you want. The Athenians used their brute force as a threat to take over the Melos Empire. [11] In the case of the soda ban, the Mayor and the Health Board are using their power to overtake a personal liberty of the people. If the idea of fair representation is put into action, both sides could be looked at as equal. This would lead to the idea of "justice is just power" becoming no longer with the soda ban. Another course of action that should be taken is that the Mayor should not have full power to select every member of the Health Board. By the government allowing the people to elect a few of the members, it would give a better sense of equality and political efficacy. Last, as for people's personal liberties being limited, we are talking about soda here NOT terrorism. There should be no debate on whether it is constitutional for the government to do this. People should have full liberty in deciding what kind of beverage they want to consume!

YES I CAN!

For more information you can check out some new articles on a soda ban being put into action in Texas public schools here.

Also to see the legendary John Stewart in a comedic clip on the soda ban you can click here.

Citations:
[1] Grynbaum, Michael. "In Soda Fight, Industry Focuses on the Long Run." New York Times. September 13, 2012. (accessed December 1, 2012).
[2] Cohan, Peter. "Bloomberg's Nannyville: Do Big Soda Ban's Benefits Exceed Its Costs?." Forbes Magazine. May 31, 2012. (accessed December 2, 2012).
[3] John, Mill. "Utilitarianism." Last modified 1971. Accessed November 28, 2012.
[4] Will, George. "New York Soda Ban." Posted June 3, 2012. ABC News. Web, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2OuQJy6ME.
[5] U.S Department of the Treasury, "USA PATRIOT Act." Accessed December 2, 2012. http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/patriot/.
[6] History1900s, "Prohibition." Accessed December 3, 2012. http://history1900s.about.com/od/1920s/p/prohibition.htm.
[7] Hartmann, Margarett. Daily Intel, "Bloomberg Plans to Ban Large Sodas." Accessed December 12, 2012. <http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/bloomberg-plans-to-ban-large-sodas.html?mid=rss>.

[8] Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice: Justice as Fairness.1971. Print.
[9] H. Payne, Nanny Bloomberg, 2012. <http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/nyc-nanny-bloomberg-soda-ban-political-cartoon.jpg>
[10] Bearman, Bloomberg Soda Ban, 2012. <http://beartoons.com/2012/06/14/editorial-cartoon-bloomberg-soda-ban/>.
[11] The Melian Dialogue. Thucydides (n.d.): 1-5. Accessed December 1, 2012. <http://lygdamus.com/resources/New PDFS/Melian.pdf>.
[12] Varvel, Gary, New York Soda Ban, 2012. <http://www.englishblog.com/2012/06/cartoon-new-york-soda-ban.html#.UMkRLKX98wE>.
[13] Martel, Frances, The Nanny, 2012. <http://www.mediaite.com/print/consumer-group-places-full-page-ad-in-the-ny-times-depicting-bloomberg-as-a-nanny/attachment/picture-1-1530/>