Why College Athletes should be paid - Free Essay Example

As the end of high school approaches, some student- athletes have the option to play a sport in college. One question they may ask themselves would be, Is it worth it to play a sport in college?, considering all the time put into the sport while having to maintain good grades. You must be a very hard-working person to be a college athlete as it is basically a full-time job jumping between the classroom, field/court, weight room, and watching film. Imagine you are a college athlete; your daily routine would consist of waking up early most days for practice. After the morning practice, you attend classes towards earning your college degree. Then, since you frequently miss class and are struggling to keep your grades up, you have a tutoring session. Lastly, to finish your day off, you have more practice which will likely end late. Athletes have to follow this routine the whole school year. This routine does not include any extra-curricular or social activities. With all the athletes time going towards their sports and studies, they lack time to work a job to have extra spending money. There are several reasons supporting why college athletes should be paid. One is the athletes do not have enough time to hold a steady job because they are constantly practicing or playing the sport, they are involved in. College is expensive, and many athletes are not given scholarships to help pay for tuition, room and board, or books. This can lead to an increasing amount of debt because they must borrow money to pay for college. Many people believe athletes should get paid for their hard work, while others believe that it would ruin the integrity of college sports if athletes were paid. When the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was founded by President Roosevelt in 1906, there was a commitment that a salary would not be provided to the student-athletes who took part in its athletic organization. This was based on the idea that college athletes should be considered amateurs, not professionals. In contrast, todayrs lucrative television contracts have become the driving revenue force behind an institutionrs ability to thrive in college athletics. Recently, for example, numerous universities have changed their athletic conference affiliation because of increased financial incentives. According to Businessinsider.com, college athletes spend over 30 hours on average a week just in practice while some reported they spent over 40 hours (1). But college athletes are not required to simply play sports 40 hours a week. Their schedule also includes a full-time college schedule that they must maintain if they want to stay in the school and continue playing college sports. For example, if a student has 10 hours of class each week and puts in the recommended four hours of study for each hour of class, then athletes spend 50 hours each week studying and attending mandatory classes and study halls. This means that college athletes have to work 90 hours per week just to remain in school on their scholarship. This is the equivalent to working two full-time jobs with a side job on the weekends just to pay their bills (Anderson 1). The debate about whether college athletes should be paid, is not a new concept. Some people believe that a scholarship should be payment enough. After all, a scholarship can be easily worth $25,000 or more per year, plus a career after college that can be worth a million dollars over a lifetime. Additionally, student- athletes receive all kinds of perks while they are in college, like staying at fancy hotels, being seen on national tv, and all the notoriety that goes with being a star athlete. It is hard to put a price tag on all of that. But if you really take a look at the facts about scholarships, you might change your mind. Only about one out of every three student-athletes receive a scholarship. Most who receive scholarships find that they only pay for part of the expenses. With all the time and energy, they put into sports: college athletes should be considered employees rather than students because their first duty is to play sports for the university, ahead of obtaining an e ducation (Zepel and Staudohaur 1). After all, although the NCAA claims college athletes are just students, the NCAAs own tournament schedules require college athletes to miss classes for nationally televised games that bring in revenue. A college coaches job is to recruit players who they think have the talent to make them win. Many times, they persuade them to come to their school by offering them scholarships. The whole idea behind a scholarship is to lure the athlete into coming being a student and athlete at their college. Scholarships are nothing more than a recruitment tactic. Indeed, many times these scholarships pay for tuition, room and board, and books, but these athletes dont have money for other necessities. When providing a service, people normally get paid for the service, so college athletes should be paid for performing a service with their athletic abilities. They offer entertainment to millions of fans each year. Almost anyone who is involved with sports, whether it be watching them or playing them, has an opinion on whether college athletes should be paid. College sports make billions of dollars, so there is room for athletes to be paid in some way. The financial outlook for the NCAA is completely different than it was even 10 years ago. The NCAA basketball tournament generated $9 million per year in 1981, $215 million per year in 1997 and generates approximately $750 million per year now. Without the athletes, this revenue would not be possible, yet they are still unpaid. Even if scholarships would be considered pay, student-athletes are underpaid in proportion to what they generate for the college. For example, in professional football and basketball, for example, players are paid approximately one-half of the revenues generated (Should College Athletes Be Paid? 10). By no means should college athletes be paid as much as professional athletes, but they deserve a little incentive for all their hard work in their respective sport and in the classroom. Furthermore, the NCAA currently produces nearly $11 Billion in annual revenue from college sports more than the estimated total league revenues of both the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League (Edelman 1). It does not seem rational that the NCAA, the colleges in the NCAA, and some coaches of the athletic program make a substantial amount of money, but the athletes do not see any of this money. In support of this look at the following statistics according Edelman, last year, the average salary for a BCS eligible football coach was $2.05 million, the average salary for a premier NCAA Division I mens basketball coach also exceeded $1 Million, and in 40 of the 50 U.S. states, the highest paid public official is currently the head coach of a state universityrs football or menrs basketball team (1). Athletes arguably do the most work out of any of these groups and are who draw in the fans, so it does not make sense that they do not receive any of the profit made from college athletics. College athletics is a billion- dollar industry and has been for a long time. Due to the increased ratings of college athletics, this figure will continue to rise. The athletes being recruited for college sports are bigger, faster and stronger than ever and will generate more money due to the number of fans who watch each week. College Universities generate so much revenue during the year that it is only fair to the players to receive part of that as compensation. College athletes should get paid based on the universityrs revenue from the sport and the apparel sales. It is very difficult to put a numeric value on exactly how much an athlete is worth to a college. A star quarterback will not only help sell tickets but will bring in plenty of merchandise sales as well. The NCCA prohibits the universities to sell a college football jersey with a players name on it, but they can sell the jersey with the players number on it, which is easily recognizable in local, and sometimes national markets. While the university can capitalize on the notoriety of its players; the players are not allowed to do this themselves. NCAA rules state that student-athletes are not allowed to use their college athletic abilities for promotional purposes or monetary gain. As stated by Anderson this means that a well-known athlete cannot charge money for the hours spent signing autographs, but the university is able to use the athlete to generate hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars through sales and increased enrollment (Anderson 1). Also, important to note: in a 1989 survey of professional football players, 31 percent of the respondents admitted to having accepted illegal payments during their college careers, and 48 percent of the respondents said they knew of other athletes who took such payments during college (Porto 41). College athletes most likely would not feel the need to break the rules if they received compensation that assisted them to pay their bills. With these factors in mind, Division I football, and menrs basketball players do not merely play a sport of leisure. Rather, they are core members of their universityrs marketing team, as well as the labor force behind a lucrative secondary industry in hosting organized sporting events. Itrs also important to note that college student-athletes are not only a part of a sports team; they are a part of the college or universityrs advertising team. Success in college sports is also believed to improve the application rates and caliber of admitted students at certain universities. For example, consider: the Flutie effect is used to describe a surge in college admission following a big sports win. Itrs named for Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie; he won the Heisman Trophy in 1984, and the Collegers admissions rose significantly in subsequent years†though the extent of Flutiers impact has been largely refuted by BC officials since then(Martinez 1). Still, colleges and universiti es use their athletic success to promote their school and entice potential applicants. Student-athletes would be paid for this and all the additional benefits they provide for their schools. Lastly, a small salary would also teach student-athletes how to save. Think about the advantage, saving is an incredibly important skill that many young people dont take part in either because they do not earn enough money to create a savings account or because they do not understand the importance of saving (Anderson 1). Life skills are an important aspect of college and playing sports, why not use their athletic abilities to help them succeed further in these skills. In conclusion, almost anyone who is involved with sports, whether it be watching them or playing them, has an opinion on whether college athletes should be paid. Based on how the NCAA has evolved over time and the amount of income they generate, college athletes should get paid for the time that they put into their respective sports. The time that they dedicate to their sport is equivalent to the time someone puts into a full-time job, if not more. Only one- third of college athletes receive a scholarship, the majority of those are partial, and only one percent of all college athletes make it to the pros. Since most college athletes do not receive a full ride and do not go pro, colleges should pay the athlete as if their sport was their job to help them pay off college and other expenses.

Plato s Theory Of Morality - 1851 Words

I contend that Plato s theories on morality are persuaded by concerns he had about moral theory. Specifically, Plato rejects rationality as the boost of subjectively evaluated self-interest because, had he received such an account, his hypothesis of justice would be liable to reactions which he holds are lethal to the contractarian theory of justice. While detailing a hypothesis to stay inside ethical constraints in some cases disregards the groups of scientific theorizing, Plato maintains to avoid this mistake. Plato concurs that rationality requires self-intrigued activity. On the other hand, he recognizes the difference between perceived self-interest and real self-interest and contends that any evident clash in the middle of rationality and morality is essentially a contention between one s apparent self-interest and the prerequisites of justice. Seeking after of one s genuine self-interest never clashes with the requests of morality. Since, for Plato, it is more reasonable to seek after one s genuine, than one s evident, self-interest, rationality and morality do not conflict. It is rational to be moral. Plato rejects the contractarian reconciliation of morality with individual rationality fundamentally because the feelings that the contractarian conception accept that a person s intentions in being just are essentially based off of self-interest, while our idea of the just individual holds that to be really only one value for its own particular purpose. TheShow MoreRelatedHuman Nature : Good Or Evil1053 Words   |  5 Pagesincluding some economic ideologies, produce theories of human nature in order to establish fundamental human rights and to establish a more productive form of government. Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics of humans, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting; it is the moral principles that construct certain standards of behavior, which every person is entitled to simply because they are a human being. Many philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, and Locke attemptedRead MoreThe Text Euthyphro By Plato990 Words   |  4 Page sJeanelle Moncrieffe   Dr. Cicura   Philosophy 2010 27 September 2017 The text Euthyphro by Plato is concisely a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro. Socrates confronts Euthyphro when he argues The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is blocked by the gods because it is holy, or because it is blocked by the gods (cf. pg. 31); 10a. This refers back to the Devine Command Theory and civil religion. Civil Religion is defined as a mixture between religion and culturalRead More Machiavelli And Plato Essay1564 Words   |  7 Pagesamongst scholars due to the ambiguity of his analogy of the amp;#8216;Nature of Politics; and the implication of morality. The Prince, has been criticised due to itamp;#8217;s seemingly amoral political suggestiveness, however after further scrutiny of other works such as The Discourses, one can argue that it was Machiavelliamp;#8217;s intention to infact imply a positive political morality. Therefore the question needs to be posed. Is Machiavelli a political amoralist? To successfully an swer thisRead More Ethical and Philosophical Questions about Value and Obligation977 Words   |  4 Pages(normative) qualitatively hedonist value theory and his utilitarian moral theory? One place we can see Mill?s empiricism is his treatment, in Chapter III, of the question of why the principle of utility is ?binding?, how it can generate a moral obligation. Compare Mill?s treatment of this question with Kant?s treatment of the question of why the CI is binding in Chapter III of the Groundwork. IV What is Kant?s metaethics? Since he holds that morality is both necessary and a priori,Read MorePlato And Aristotle s Theories Of Utilitarianism And Kantian Ethics1408 Words   |  6 PagesThe ancient theories of Plato and Aristotle differ greatly from the contemporary theories of Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. Plato and Aristotle focused on the importance of virtue in an individual’s life. Plato believed that purity of the soul was the most important thing in life and can be achieved by mastering the four virtues: justice, wisdom, courage, and moderation. Aristotle believed that the goal of human life was to achieve happiness, which is made possible by the cultivation of a justRead MoreThe Allegory Of The Cave1307 Words   |  6 Pagesof the world so once he steps outside; the sun hurts his eyes, and burns his skin. He eventually acclimates, and is able to enjoy everything. Plato uses an Allegory with the relationship between the darkness of the cave and everything that the world has to offer. Plato believed that the human mind has the capabilit y to recognize the ‘ideal forms.’ Plato uses the sun and something good and positive whereas the darkness is dull and haunting. With the sun, there is growth everywhere, light, and colorRead MoreAnalysis Of The Book The First Ones 1562 Words   |  7 Pagesminds and Plato and Aristotle were the first philosophers to answer these questions. 2. Plato 2.1. His Life To many people, Plato was known as the first writer of philosophy. Plato was born in Athens in 429 BC (Plato-Biography, egs.edu). His birth name was Aristocles and gained the nickname Platon later on. He had two brothers named Adeimantus and Glaucon (Plato-Biography, egs.edu). When Plato met Socrates, he adopted his philosophy and discussed about virtue. From 409 BC to 404 BC, Plato was inRead MoreSocrates Vs. Plato s Lysis1244 Words   |  5 Pagesfriendship is. Even today, most people struggle with clearly defining this kind of companionship, just as Socrates does in Plato’s Lysis. In this philosophical dialogue, Socrates and his peers debate potential theories concerning the reasons why people become friends with one another. Several theories are developed, but throughout the dialogue Socrates counters his own arguments in order to achieve further understanding of his inquiry. As they deliberate the true nature of friendship, Plato’s writing parallelsRead MoreDiv ine Command Theory : An Ethical Theory828 Words   |  4 PagesDivine command theory is an ethical theory (metaethics) which asserts that an actions place as morally good, is corresponding to whether or not it is commanded by God. The theory states, roughly, that â€Å"The view that morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands. Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands orRead MoreThe Philosophy Of Human Nature1534 Words   |  7 Pagesphilosophers began to focus on uncovering the inherent nature of humankind by studying the shared attributes, feelings, and behaviors that humans exhibit. Theories about human nature shape every culture in some way. During the Classical Period in Greece, Plato and Aristotle significantly influenced society’s perception of human nature. Plato suggested that people were rational beings, and connected human nature with the concept of the soul, and the ability to reason. Aristotle’s views differed slightly

OedipusBeowulfFinalDraft Essay - 1667 Words

Edin Schneider AP English Literature Mr. Weeg 21 October 2014 Oedipus and Beowulf Compare and Contrast Essay Oedipus Rex and Beowulf are two entirely different works in terms of the cultures that they were written for. Oedipus Rex was written by the Greek playwright Sophocles in about 430 B.C., and Beowulf was written a few hundred years before 1000 C.E., when it was transcribed from the Anglo-Saxon language. Despite these obvious differences, the two works share identical archetypes. Not only do Oedipus Rex and Beowulf include evil monsters and tragic heroes in their contents, but very similar themes about mankind. An example of one of these themes is that mans efforts to meet the expectation set by their past victories prevents them†¦show more content†¦But truly, the prophecy that he is following is only one created by himself. This belief that Beowulf clings to will eventually present big problems for him and his kingdom. When the events of Oedipus begin to unfold, and when Oedipus is slowly realizing that he has fulfilled the pr ophecy, he still maintains his pride. When Tiresias is trying to explain to Oedipus that he was, in fact, the killer of Laius, Oedipus disregards him, stating that he is merely spouting riddles(25). Tiresias rebuts, stating that Oedipus of all people, the one who bested the sphinx, would have no problem solving riddles. Oedipus cannot ignore this taunt, and allows Tiresias to continue, since he challenge[d] there [his] strongest point(25). Oedipus pride prevented him from listening to Tiresias, but it allowed him to continue listening to him at the same time. By acknowledging Oedipus feat of besting the sphinx, Tiresias was allowed to continue talking to Oedipus, which begs the question of whether or not Oedipus truly desired to hear the rest of Tiresias words. One thing is for certain, yet again. Oedipus; pride is preventing him from solving his problems. Closer to the end of the story, when Oedipus finds out that he was abandoned by his true mother and father and left in the wilde rness to die as an infant, his pride seemingly increases. His

Justice as Fairness Entitlement Justice for Theory

Question: John Rawlss argument for Justice as fairness and Robert Nozicks argument for Entitlement justice for theory.' Answer: Introduction In terms of administrative fairness, the justice theory seems to vary according to different cultures. The justice seems to be influenced by the individual agreement on the various aspects. There are various theorists like John Rawls, Robert Nozick both who developed several theories on justice such as theories of distributive justice. In this essay, John Rawls Justice as fairness and Robert Nozicks Entitlement justice for theory are illustrated so that the superior theory among these two can be rightfully identified with the help of ample number of justified reasons. Discussion Insofar the background of the justice of fairness is concerned; it seems to be the favorable environment where the basic demands of every citizen can be fulfilled. According to Najafpour, Sara, and Hossein Harsin, the Justice as fairness by John Rawls Indicates that in order to develop a liberal society in both the social and political institutions, it is important to do an arrangement of a proper structure in the legal, political, social, economic systems. With the help of this basic structure, these systems can distribute their benefits and positive impacts among its citizens like their fundamental rights, social recognition, financial benefits etc. The basic structure of the society effectively influences the goals, objectives, characters, attitudes and the prospects of lives of the citizens. As the citizens cannot leave a society, after being unable to cope with the structure, they are forced to live in that particular structure only. The basic concept of the theory of John Rawls suggests that the idea of social cooperation seems to be the combination of both positive and negative aspects. Rawls indicates that to lead a decent life, the individuals need to have proper assistance from their societies. Even there should be a particular technique with which the facilities and benefits will be distributed among them (Rawls, John, page no. 233). The negative idea of this theory mainly includes the fact that no individual is determined to be poor or rich, male or female, born in the favorable racial group etc. Therefore, no individual can get extra facility or disadvantages from the social institutions. On the other hand, the positive idea includes the fact that it is basically an equal reciprocal system where the benefits and facilities are supposed to be distributed among all citizens in appropriate manner. It mainly focuses on the concept that all the citizens are equal fundamentally which ensures the equal distribut ion of all the facilities. The proper justice lies on this idea that the goods, produced in the collective manner need to be distributed among all citizens. Moreover, even if the inequalities happen, that should benefit the demands of the citizens who strongly require them. Based on his discussion of the original position and the value and ignorance, Rawls believes that people will choose two principles to distribute justice. The first principle indicates that every person has the right to claim the appropriate amount of equal rights like other citizens to have an adequate lifestyle. The demand needs to be compatible with the sense of liberty. On the other hand, as per the viewpoint of Rawls, John, the second principle indicates to the two specific conditions such as the economic and social conditions need to be applicable to different official positions so that every employee can get the equal opportunity for further improvement and they need to provide maximum equal benefits to the non-advance society members. Therefore, it can be said that the first principle is typically related to the advantages of the political institution while the second principle is highly connected with the economic system. The first principle includes the priority which seems to decide the distribution of similar facilities among employees and the appropriate value of the liberties related to the political institution. The second principle also has two different parts. The fair distribution of opportunity and equality among all the citizens that gives them opportunities to acquire their desired educational qualification and economic opportunities regardless of their class and status. The second part is the principle of differences with which the distribution of wealth and income are distributed. It regulates the inequalities which work for the benefits of worst offs. By assuring this in the society, Rawls reimburses for the naturally happening inequalities like the born talents. Robert Nozicks Entitlement justice for theory indicates the distribution of private property and justice among ordinary people. There are three constituting principles of this theory. The first principle indicates to the primary acquisition perspectives of the ordinary people. The second principle is about the procedure with which one individual acquires holding from other individual by an exchange of power. The third principle suggests the acquainting power with which one individual tries to adjust in a situation where the holding of power is distributed unjustly. The first principle indicates self-ownership of each person, that every human being is the owner of their own talents, bodies and abilities. Therefore, they also have the right to the produced product or services by their talent. It also indicates at the labor holding seems to be illegitimate because no individual can be owned by other individual. The second principle indicates that it is the responsibility of every individual to protect the basic life, property and liberty without seeking the help of any military force or police. This process can consume huge time and cost. From the viewpoint of Letseka, Moeketsi, in order to reduce the chances for further violation of the rights by the involvement of other individuals, as per this theory, every individual needs to protect their own rights. Robert Nozick argues that the employment of other agencies reduce the effectiveness of this acquiring process. However, Fraser, Colin R opined that the distributive justice method of this theory includes some external forces who seem to be responsible for the distribution of rights among individuals. Their efforts give them the right to claim the shares of the individuals among whom the shares are distributed. According to Robert Nozick, every theory includes a starting points and transformational processes with which the theories embrace whatever result comes out. However, he criticizes that principle generating principle of Rawlss theory does not have the ability to process principles. It only aims to identify end result principle. Robert Nozick criticises that this fact of Rawlss theory seems to be very ironic because it seems great but cannot give a proper justification behind selecting the outcome of its results (Wndisch, Joachim). Robert Nozick also argues against the principle of difference of Rawlss theory in which it is mentioned that no individual is that worse so that it can be controlled by other individual. Robert Nozick rejects this concept but cannot provide any other baseline for it and also does not provide the criteria for the people to be controlled by other. Moreover, for this principle, he also argues that it the social cooperation for the benefit of all members of the society cannot determine the advantages of the less-advanced society members in comparison to their other successful mates. However, based on my argument, these flaws cannot be regarded as the actual backdrops of the theory of Rawls. Insofar as the first principle of this theory is concerned, Robert Nozick also agrees with the fact of liberty which every individual need to get. Robert Nozick also admits the openion of Rawlss theory regarding the redistribution process of wealth by government among individuals. He admits that his theory does not fulfill the criteria of wealth distribution among people. Rather, the difference principle of Rawlss theory helps to increase the possibility of the less advantage receiver people and the previous injustice victims by rectifying the wealth distribution process. However, the previous criticism of Robert Nozick regarding the difference principle is very weak because he rejects this theory but cannot be able to provide another proper view which can prove its insufficiency. For this reason, I think, Rawlss theory already has owned some advantages over the theory of Rob ert Nozick. In addition to that, Rawlss theory tends to increase the success rate of society by increasing the benefits and opportunities of individuals and also tries to maximize the outcomes. Though it has little care about the practical implementation of the human nature, it mainly covers the basic needs and demands of the people and also recommends measure for maximizing the opportunities of the victims of injustice. For this reason, I prefer the justifications of Rawlss theory which clearly elaborates the structure and their effectiveness by illustrating the principles and their sub-parts. Conclusion In this way, both the theories of John Rawlss Justice as fairness and Robert Nozicks Entitlement justice for theory are analyzed critically in order to identify the most effective theory in comparison to the other. The analysis has been done from the perspective of John Rawls which strengthen the fact of equal distribution of power among each and every citizen. This theory mainly promotes the protection of self-ownership of every citizen along with the equal distribution of all available facilities among them. However, the modern scientists needs to work more on strongly establishing the fact of Rawls in which he claims that benefit of all citizen can increase the potentiality of the improvement of non-advanced citizens. Rawls does not prove this fact with proper justification for which the researchers need to provide ample umber of practical examples. Reference List Fraser, Colin R. "John Rawls, Robert Nozick, and the Difference Principle: Finding Common Ground."Inquiries Journal3.04 (2011) Lawrence, Michael Anthony. "'Justice-as-Fairness' as Judicial Guiding Principle: Remembering John Rawls and the Warren Court." (2015) Letseka, Moeketsi. "Ubuntu and justice as fairness."Mediterranean journal of social sciences5.9 (2014): 544 Najafpour, Sara, and Hossein Harsij. "The Impact of Rawls and MacIntyre Theory of Justice on National Cohesion in Multicultural Societies."International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences3.7 (2013): 202 Rawls, John. "Justice as fairness: political not metaphysical."Philosophy Public Affairs(1985): 223-251 Wndisch, Joachim. "Nozicks proviso: Misunderstood and misappropriated."Rationality, Markets and Morals4.79 (2013)