Shouts from the Stands: Why the Ncaa Shouldn’t Pay Athletes by Davis Malone and “shouts from the Stands: Why College Athletes Should Be Paid” by Tony Carroll

Emma Slappey

Professor O’Shea

ENGL 1120-026

Paper 2

28 February 2016

Pay for Play?

In this essay I will be comparing the articles of “Shouts from the Stands: Why the NCAA Shouldn’t Pay Athletes” by Davis Malone and “Shouts from the Stands: Why College Athletes Should be Paid” by Tony Carroll. Both of these articles are arguing about whether NCAA athletes should or shouldn’t be paid.  The argument for paying college athletes is better than the argument against paying college athletes.  The argument provides evidence with its allegations, shows statistics and numbers, along with rules/history regarding the NCAA, along with a solution to a problem.  The argument against paying college athletes, does bring up a few good points, but doesn’t provide enough evidence to back up their claim. It goes more along the opinion that student athletes need to stop being so spoiled and realize all the things they need to be thankful for. While that is very inspiring, it does not bring about a valid argument against athletes being paid. 

        Both articles start by bringing up their main allegation as to why athletes should or shouldn’t be paid.  The argument for college athletes being paid brings up its first big example of what other billion dollar industry, besides the NCAA, has unpaid employees? The author brings up good evidence of athletes getting into trouble because they are trying to do things to earn money. Athletes including Cam Newton and Reggie Bush got themselves into trouble regarding money related NCAA violations like receiving money or benefits that they aren’t allowed to except due to the NCAA rules. The author includes in his case that universities are put under sanctions or penalized because of their athletes violating these rules. So how can money motivated violations come to an end? The solution is to pay the athletes. The author arguing that NCAA student-athletes should be paid because they are not amateurs and scholarships are not providing a free education supports this resolution. 

        The argument against paying college athletes claims that the education and services collegiate athletes receive for their participation is enough compensation and will be valuable after they’re done competing athletically.  The author claims that if these athletes want to get paid then they will have to say goodbye to their fellow student-athletes that will have their programs cut to help pay for other athlete’s salaries. This argument concludes it’s introductory argument with the bottom line that athletes have a choice to participate in college athletics and if they want to get paid then they shouldn’t compete in the NCAA. While the author clearly states his premise in this argument, he does not support his claims with any evidence other than his own assumptions. 

        The argument for paying NCAA athletes brings up the next effective point. The view of the NCAA has become so ruthless that some people are comparing it to a slave plantation system. He provides a source of a sociology professor at Colorado State University stated that, “The coaches are the overseers who get work from the laborers (players) who provide riches for the masters (universities) while receiving little for their efforts” (Johnson).  Then he goes into the fact that the universities constantly control the lives of student-athletes. They are told what to do, how to do it, when to do it and if they don’t abide to those commands, they will be punished. Even though saying that the NCAA is a plantation system is a little extreme, but there is a truth in the claim. This article continues to provide evidence to help support why athletes should be paid and provides a source that actually works for a NCAA university.