Monday, May 1, 2017

Research Blog #9: Argument & Counter-Argument


The NCAA, as an institution, breeds a culture of corruption. Because of the scandals that have occurred in the past three decades, it is evident that the NCAA has crafted the perfect formula for building its brand and staying afloat all these years through the means of exploiting its own student-athletes. The poor infrastructure of the NCAA’s rules and regulations influenced some of the abysmal choices made by boosters and school officials that have put programs “behind the eight ball”. It’s sad to say, but the brand itself is just too massive is today’s culture to fall. The corrupt nature of the NCAA begins at the student-athlete level, climbs to those involved with funding the school and administrators finishes at the level of National Collegiate Athletics Association. The problem with the NCAA is its poor infrastructure because by the time the scandal gets to it, it's already been diffused at the student-athlete and/or college/University level through sanctions.


A counter argument that could change the landscape of college athletics is made in “College Athletes for Hire” written by Allen L. Sack and Ellen J. Staurowsky. While both authors continue to pin the blame on the NCAA for its handling of its student-athletes, the writers shed a different, unique light on the matter of collegiate athletes and compensation. They state that, “In other words, under the present system, hundreds, and even thousands, of dollars are often funneled to blue-chip athletes that when combined with scholarship money roughly approximate what some athletes would be getting in an open market. By openly acknowledging that college athletes are in fact professionals, little would change except that athletes would get a bigger share of sports revenues and no longer be treated as criminals for accepting compensation they deserve” (Sack & Staurowsky, 144). Basically, they are challenging the NCAA to compensate its athletes because the institution has slowly but surely been taking the “student” out of “student-athlete”. Both authors argue that if the NCAA is going to continue to glorify their student-athletes and go about their business as usual, then it is only fair to give the athletes, especially the blue-chip ones, the money they deserve and to not be treated as delinquents for collecting compensation from their respective school. Basically, the NCAA should heavily consider paying its athletes just as if they are professionals because of the revenue they pull in for the school without "officially" seeing any of it.

No comments:

Post a Comment