In “Athletes and Compensation”, the article argues about the salary of athletes in the United States, and whether or not they are paid a substantial amount. The author discusses the average salary for each professional sport, and also the revenue collected from the athletes as well. The article also informs the reader of the reasons why the author believes the athletes need the salary they receive. Throughout “Athletes and Compensation”, the author utilizes the rhetorical strategies of logical appeal, emotional appeal, and tone to support his argument that athletes are not overpaid whatsoever. To begin, the author uses logical appeal multiple times throughout the article to persuade the reader that athletes should not have their salaries lowered. For example, he states: “In 2010, the National Football League earned $9 billion in revenue while the National Hockey League generated the least revenue among the four sports, still totaling $2.7 billion!” (“Athletes and Compensation”) This quote provides the amount of revenue from each sport, which proves to be a ginormous sum. The author uses this statistic to show that although athletes are paid quite a large amount, they still earn back most of the money they receive through revenue and profits. …show more content…
In the article, it says: “Professional athletes, being physical in nature, can also lead to injuries that require thousands of dollars in medical treatment.” (“Athletes and Compensation”) The athletes require the money so if they are injured, they will be able to pay for their treatment. The author mentions this to attempt to persuade the reader to feel sympathetic for the professional athletes, and why they need their salary. If athletes were underpaid, they would be unable to pay for medical treatment, and possibly would not be able to continue playing the
College Varsity Athletes Should be Paid In this paper, I argue that college varsity athletes should be paid for playing sports that bring in revenue. In particular, College football and basketball because they bring in the majority of the revenue for the schools. The revenue accomplished by college sports programs continues to increase, due to the growth in interest of the NCAA basketball tournament and the college football playoffs (Berry III, Page 270). Throughout the past few years, one of the main topics debated in college sports is whether or not the athletes should be paid.
Ryan Vanderfords’ article published in the Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal explores this issue of whether or not college athletes should be paid beyond what they receive in scholarships. Vanderford is currently a law associate at a law firm in Los Angeles, California. He played sports throughout high school and college, so the author can relate to this topic. The payment of college athletes has become a more prominent issue in today’s society then it has been in the past. He argues that at major universities, student athletes help the school generate their revenue and therefore should be paid.
Currently in college sports, athletes are legally prohibited from financially profiting for playing (Garthwaite). However, recently on July 1, 2021 there has been an exception made, which allows student athletes to receive money through non-school sponsored advertisements (Garthwaite). Many people debate whether college athletes should be paid because of the fact that colleges that compete with each other in sports have extremely different amounts of money that they have access to and how that could affect the way that college sports stay competitive. College athletes deserve to be compensated for their labor for two main reasons. One, each athlete faces a certain and often consequential physical and mental risk by participating in
After graduating from High School one may choose to further his or her education through college. People do this for many reasons. Some people do it for professional benefits, while others do it for sports athletics. This paper will be focusing on those who do go to college for athletic benefits. Specifically, this is focusing on how these college athletes do not get paid and why they should be paid.
Is it equivocal for the NCAA to produce more than $1 billion and for the players, who are the ones who are generating majority of the revenue, to not get paid a single penny? This topic has been widely debated for the past few years, and in “Viewpoint: College Athletes Should Be Paid,” Raman Mama sets forward an argument in favor of the monetary payment of college athletes. The title of the article clearly demonstrates what the author’s intended goal is in writing this article and it seems as if the audience of the article is the general population. In this persuasion article, the author fittingly appeals to two of the three modes of persuasion: pathos and logos. The author appeals to pathos in discussion of the bankruptcy of many professional
College sports is one of the best-known entertainments around the world. But for the athletes, they are students first then athletes second. For college student-athletes, there are a variety of scholarships and grants to help pay for college or college debt. However, some critics say that student-athletes should be paid a salary like pro athletes would, with help from scholarships or grants. The authors of, College Athletes are being Educated, not Exploited, Val Ackerman and Larry Scott, argue that student-athletes are already paid by free education and other necessities.
Should college athletes be paid? Annotated Bibliography Benedykiuck, Mike. “The Blue Line: College athletes should be paid.” Dailyfreepress.
In his 2011 article “The Shame of College Sports”, Taylor Branch claims college sports are corrupt because college athletes are not paid. Through the use of ethos, logos, and an accusatory tone in the article “Should College Athletes be Paid? Why, They Already Are” written for Sports Illustrated in 2014, Seth Davis effectively argues why Taylor Branch’s claim is incorrect. Davis’ use of ethos addresses Branch’s credibility. Through his use of logos, Davis effectively points out why Branch’s argument is illogical.
The first point is even though college athletes have the same hours as a full-time job, athletes should not be paid because it would take money away from other activities. If athletes get paid $100,000 for every football player, there are usually 20 - 30 players per team. $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 goes to the football team yearly. If so much money goes to the football team, how much money does that leave for other activities? “If we pay the athletes maybe we should also do it for the first violinist in the school orchestra, or the lead actor in the theatrical productions, and perhaps popular professors allocate course enrollment slots to those students who bid the highest,” Andrew Zimbalist, sports writer.
People know that doctors and firefighters save lives, while athletes play a game to make money. Even teachers pay isn’t anywhere near to athletes; they educate the generation’s youth so they can make a difference in the future. So many jobs that are very important don’t get paid as much and that money can go towards better causes. But these are only some of the reasons that pro athletes get paid too much.
Athletes - Paid for Their Worth Most people think that athletes are overpaid and see huge contracts come out every year. It’s not everyday that an athlete wakes up to a 20 million dollar contract. In fact, they actually worked for it over many years of training and dedication. Pro athletes are paid exactly what they deserve because they work hard and sacrifice more than most people think. It's not just businesses paying them; people do things like buy merchandise, tickets to the games and support their favorite teams while the athlete does the “dirty” work of performing.
College athletes already get their education free why should they get paid for playing a sport they love playing. What do you think, should college athletes get paid for playing the sport there in? Well I don’t think so and in this paper I will tell you and give you reasons why they shouldn’t be paid. College athletes are already getting a free education they shouldn’t be allowed to be paid. My topic is why college athletes shouldn’t get paid.
The argument made by these two professors state that Division 1 players qualify as employees under Federal Labor Laws. Since players are under this law, the McCormick’s feel players should get financially compensated due to the physical rigors and balance education simultaneously (Cooper, 2011). It’s unbelievable how this couple thinks Division 1 athletes should get paid. The privilege to attend a university that is costly on full scholarship should be more than enough. Furthermore, student-athletes received stipends as an allowance assist with their livelihood.
Professional athletes are extremely overpaid for the “jobs” that they do. They only entertain for a living and get paid millions of dollars per season. Each sport is different in how they pay their athletes, and the difference in salaries from one player to another can be in the tens of millions of dollars. These athletes are paid for jobs that they only do for a certain number of games and do not even play the games over the course of an entire year. In most professional sports, they play in games for only a few months and then have a few months off.
People know that doctors and firefighters save lives, while athletes play a game to make money. Even teachers don’t get paid as much; they educate the generation’s youth so they can make a difference in the future. So many jobs that are very important don’t get paid as much and that money can go towards better causes. But these are only some of the reasons that pro athletes get paid too much.