A customer walks into the local Pizza Hut, and sits down. A waiter approaches and asks what kind of pizza they want. The customer gives his order to him, and lays 200 dollars under the menu. The waiter notices, and takes the money. The customer’s pizza is 10 dollars, and he pays for it by a debit card. When he leaves, he puts 300 dollars under his own plate. The waiter grabs the money, places the money in his pocket, and goes back to working. Now, if two new characters illustrated the names of the waiter and the customer for the football player, and an athletic booster, then everyone would be saying how rude it is, and how corrupt our society is. That is an exact reason why we shouldn’t pay players, and how the sanctions that the NCAA has put down to prevent the main sanction (paying players) from happening. Paying players to play an athletic sport in the NCAA should not be allowed, and that’s because colleges aren't allowed/shouldn't pay players and they don't need to earn money. There are many arguments against paying players
The first argument, “Colleges aren't allowed/shouldn't pay players" has many opinionated answers, are biased, or have no clue of what's going on. In some past research, there have been some points that have been made that they should be paid. Others, for instance, show that they shouldn't be paid. There’s been that they’re getting free academics, free board, free meal, etc. and there’s also seen that full-ride scholars can't have a full-time job, so they could use some money. Both, I agree with, but in general, they shouldn't be paid, but there should be some rule changes. What I'm saying is, is that you notice smaller schools getting hit with the sanctions. For instance, Southern Methodist University, in the 80's, paid 21 football players over $61,000 to play for them over 3 years. If you notice, there is a rule that you can't pay players to play NCAA Football. To pay college athletes to play football for you is illegal. They tried to...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document