Research Blog #9: Argument and Counter-Argument

My argument is that players in collegiate sports are being unlawfully exploited by the NCAA and universities. The practices which the NCAA disregards a players right of publicity (the right to their image) by forcing them to sign this right over. Also that they act as a cartel by limiting what players can earn and thus putting a cap on trade. Anthony Miller in his article "NCAA Division I Athletics: Amateurism and Exploitation", gives good examples as to why athletes should not be payed. His first argument is that only football and basketball make money which means that all the other sports the school sponsors, like women's volleyball and even baseball, do not. He asks if it would be fair to pay those in men's basketball more than women playing the same sport even though they practice the same amount. Many of the counter arguments follow the line of reasoning where big football and basketball programs generate money for other sports and many programs which never make money and that paying athletes would deprive these other activities of funding. The argument is always framed as "think of the other sports" and tend to disregard the issues that those in football and basketball must deal with. The article "The Case For Paying College Athletes" by Sanderson and Siegfried completely disregards the point made above. For articles who argue payment for players, they all tend to argue for the individual players and their rights while those opposed to paying these athletes tend to focus on where the money that players don't get is spent on things which support other students.