I am interested in this question because I am currently a college student. This question raises an argument surrounding college athletics today, and as I am enrolled in a Division 1 college the issue raises itself on my campus, as well as many others. This issue affects me directly because I am worried about where the money will come from. Current recruiting payment comes from boosters and alumni, but if salaries are given to players then it may come from my tuition money. This issue affects my values because after I have been on campus, I worry about the character issues of athletes at my university. I don't see why money should go to a kid who spends their time at the bars every weekend, just because they are more athletic than most people. Another issue that I see with paying athletes results from the conversation revolving solely around Men's Basketball and Football, but there rarely comes a discussion of paying Female athletes, who have the same responsibilities. My personal experience ties to my moral question above, being on a college campus I have been able to see that college athletes are still human an have character flaws, and they are much more obvious when you are within campus of them rather than just looking up to them as a high school student. I am qualified to write about this subject because I am a college student who cares about the reputation of my University and cares about the funding to these student-athletes.

The first source in my analysis comes from CNN Money, "College athletes finally getting some cash." This article portrays the news that college athletes are now getting an extra stipend to their tuition that already comes paid for. The evidence in the article that stipends ranging from $2,000 to $5,000 are now being paid out shows a development in the argument. The major value to this news comes for those who support paying student-athletes, because they now have gotten their foot in the door to added benefits. The opposing side also has an interest in this because it gives the athletes a little something extra and that, at the very least, accounts for a moral victory for the other side. The author gains credibility for himself by his employment by CNN Money, he talks about the financial side of the athletic world which he credentials himself as an expert in. This article shows no bias as the author only reports the news of stipends being allowed for student athletes.

The second source I used for my research came from an article on Forbes that challenges another article published in Time, "Sorry Time Magazine: Colleges Have No Reason to Pay Athletes." The central claim made by the author revolves around the idea that College have no reason to pay athletes because college athletes classify as amateurs. The athletes do not classify as professionals and therefore don't deserve to be paid. The author's main evidence explains a case that explains how his daughter and her church league team are amatuers and don't get paid off of the tickets that are purchased, so college athletes as amatuers shouldn't either. The major claim in this article results from the immediate challenge Forbes makes on Time Magazine. One of the magazines will lose credibility from the challenge that the author for Forbes makes to Time Magazines counterargument. The bias sheds light on the authors opinion that athletes shouldn't receive payment and is seen from the title and throughout the paper.

The final article I found for this analysis came from the New York Times, "A Way to Start Paying College Athletes." The central claim comes in the title, that a way exists to pay college athletes. The authors evidence comes from his own idea on how to pay athletes, using a free market system with a salary cap and minimum wages. The major interest at stake rests on the New York Times, as this theoretical solution surely will not be completely adopted and remains as just a thought. The author credentials himself through his documented plan on how to pay athletes. The author also shows bias in his plan as the basis of this article only details one side.

Reflecting

The question for my paper challenges the sides taken by people on the issue of paying college athletes. The argument stems from agreeing whether or not to pay athletes, and then further goes into how to pay, how much you pay, and where to get the money from? The agreements are few, because everyone has their own opinion on the issue. The disagreements however seem infinite. There are sides that take paying athletes, receiving a slight amount more, sides that revolve around players gaining access to marketing themselves, and sides that claim a free education and dormitory more than account for the players' hard work. The research I have done, shows me that ways exist to to more than what already occurs without opening the door to full blown professional leagues for student-athletes. I might need to revise the question to limit it to just one of these controversies, but I also don't want to limit it too much.
