The Pay for Play Analysis

By Darrell Puckett

ncaa-logo - Copy

Every morning I wake up and go to work expecting for a pay check on Friday, but the controversy surrounding college athletics is if they should get paid for their efforts. I have composed two different perspectives about payment of college athletes that will challenge the individual thought process. Each one gives certain aspects according to my own opinion, and comments are encouraged.

The first perspective involves the reality of being an outstanding high school athlete and being recruited for your abilities on a field. All college’s have a certain number of scholarships to give each recruiting season, so with that being said, they are paying for that person’s college tuition. Using football as the example in college, there’s only so much an institution is supposed to provide. Full tuition should meet those expectations, but college athletes think they’re entitled to more.

Why take extra benefits that other teammates aren’t taking? It’s not fair or logical, and other kids are happy with a free education, so why can’t that player be content? Unfair benefits can bring NCAA sanctions to a college and possibly danger the programs reputation. If a person accepts the scholarship, then they should know everything that’s guaranteed. Read the fine print before committing and signing.

Expecting more than what’s guaranteed is foolish and irresponsible for these highly coveted high school athletes. It’s hard to show sympathy towards an athlete when his schooling, food and board is being paid for. It’s time for these unappreciative athletes to grow up and realize how great their opportunity is.

The second perspective describes the difficulty of college life. For every student athlete the life of managing studies and sports can be difficult, so why is it a big deal to have extra help? Why not accept certain cash benefits to help out with that little extra bit that the college doesn’t supply? It’s hard to argue with certain athletes that perform well on the field about accepting some side help, but there’s still a problem with it. The problem originates from what’s fair or not.

The average time spent on the football practice field totals 43 hours a week, which is more than most people work per week. Playing sports is equivalent to working a full-time job. Plus, add keeping a certain GPA for eligibility each and every week while you’re enrolled. The incentive for extra benefits is real and lives inside all colleges.

As a currently enrolled college student, I know that trying to fend for yourself is difficult and any help provided is much appreciated. Trying to handle any other activities beyond academics provide additional stress, but college is about learning how the world works. Figuring out how to juggle several things at one time describes exactly what the college experience is all about.

With all this stated, my personal opinion is split down the middle. I like both sides, but this article is intended to make the reader think. Compose your own thoughts and comment. There’s no correct answer. This issue has been debated for years, so don’t be discouraged by my own two perspectives.  Be encouraged to comment and display your honest opinion for the AUMnibus community to read.

Contact the writer:



3 thoughts on “The Pay for Play Analysis

  1. I don’t believe college athletes should be paid. However, they should be able to make money off their name and likeness such as autographs.

  2. I think the idea of college athletes getting payed is dangerous and I would have to vote no on such a movement. The principal in itself is quite generous and I believe the idea stems from a good place. But anytime you incorporate personal gain with a good cause, the cause then becomes cancerous.

    What is the cause?

    Athletes believe they should be payed to play sports; or given an allowance to counter the loss of free time to a busy schedule devoted to (football etc.)

    I find the claim to be reasonable. If I were a student athlete, maybe I wouldn’t have time to work a job which in returns leaves me without any money to spend on luxuries such as a date, clothes, etc.


    With that loss of time comes the opportunity to play a collegiate sport with a scholarship most likely, food, housing, personal trainers, as well as the opportunity to showcase your talent to professionals at a higher level.

    My logic…

    Education is a priority and with that comes the opportunity to provide collegiate sports for students to participate in while they attend school. Do colleges pay doctors, lawyers, and engineers for the countless hours they put in for studying? Aren’t students just as important to colleges as athletes? The study body’s existence and future success in the professional work place is what sustains an establishments prestige.

    Therefore, without education there’d be no college sports. What type of message are we sending if we allow players to get payed. Eventually, players will demand more and more which will turn the sports that we love so much into a business. It’s not all about the players. The last thing we need is a recruiting war based off of how much money a player will receive. May I remind you, not all colleges have big bank accounts.

    My solution..
    If I disagree with paying players then what solution do I offer? Offer student athletes indirect benefits such as food allowance in a credit card format

    1. Brandon,

      First off, thank you for the input. I respect your opinion directed towards to college students and how important education really reflects. College’s cannot begin to start a recruiting war with other schools on who has more money, because in return, they get all highly regarded players. Thank you for your valuable input on this subject matter.

      With regards,

      Darrell Puckett

Leave a Reply