(This article is written from the perspective of United States of America where participating in sport is seen very positively by the society. A close look will be taken at college sport in this article from the standpoint of stipend. A contention will be made why participating in all college sports, not just highly profitable football, should receive stipends (i.e., some form of fixed remuneration in cash instead of just scholarship that helps to fund college education), and why stipends should be distributed equally between all games. Opposing viewpoints like stipend would lead to cheapening of college athletes will be put in perspective. In countries like India and South Korea, learning usually means getting high academic scores. Sport in colleges here has a marginal role when it comes to admission and funding. There is perhaps still a long way to go to change that.)
It is true that purpose of college is learning. Sport too constitutes a part of learning. Success of any sportsperson is not related with just his or her physical strength: it surprisingly involves mental qualities as well. Whether it is physical-centric sports like football and basketball or mental-centric sports like chess, all require a power to endure. Just like ability to read and write opens new windows of opportunity and makes a citizen useful to the society, so is the case with sport. Successful college athletes are, after all, in a better position to handle services that require blend of physical stamina and mental endurance. The nation benefits from grooming of young people who can more easily be assimilated in national services like security forces, state intelligence agencies.
Sport helps in approaching life a more positive way. Current US President Barack Obama is regularly seen taking part in basketball and baseball games. United States of America has made significant wealth through enterprising activities of its people, which is one of the hallmarks of successful athletes. Not surprisingly, state provides a supportive environment for young people to take part in sports. College sport is an excellent way of combining education with athletic endeavor whilst having one’s degree funded through scholarship.
College sport in US in modern times is a big business generating millions of dollars of revenue for individual colleges. It is reported by ESPN that The Longhorns' athletic department made about $45 million from selling tickets to sporting events in 2010. Colleges in Ohio states collectively earned $15.8 million, North Carolina $10.2 million, and Alabama $8.8 million from selling TV, radio, and internet rights. For the University of Central Florida, students are generating almost $15 million of the bill from the athletic department (For more recent data of Sept 2014, click The 20 Colleges that Make the Most Money on Sports). Not surprisingly, such revenues help to make colleges self-sustainable. Colleges can pass this benefit directly to students by reducing their tuition fees, not taking subsidies from state, investing more on educational projects, or paying stipends which is the pertinent topic discussed under this article.
It is to be noted that US state policies do not allow college athletes to be paid stipends. Otherwise, college students would essentially turn out to be employees, changing legal dynamics by making them eligible for workers' compensation and other benefits. According to one commentator, a proposal of $150-per-month stipend for athletic scholarship recipients in football and basketball is sham on the premise of ‘amateurism,’ a cornerstone of college sport.
According to Florida Athletic Director Jeremy Foley, players deserve a share in the huge money generated by commercialization of college sport. Head Ball Coach Steve Spurrier says fifty years ago, there was not any kind of money, and the players got full scholarships. Spurrier, who reportedly earned $2.8 billion in 2011, said that now it truly bothers that he has gotten rich while remuneration of his players has not changed.
Earlier, Spurrier had proposed $300-a-game stipend for college football players. This is interesting. But what about those athletes who do not participate in more profitable games like football and baseball? Understandably, state laws prohibit special concession for a single game. If football is making surplus money, some part of it can be transferred for athletes of other genre. This will lead to balanced growth of all sporting activities. After all, each sport is important in the sense it represents one unique kind of skill development. While more popular games like USC football and Duke basketball will help their players be a part of the huge business they generate in terms of TV shows etc., less popular ones like lacrosse at Johns Hopkins would not be left behind.
If it is feared that rewarding stipends would lead to indiscipline among athletes who are also young college learners, then a system that rewards them after a time lag may be thought of. For instance, athletes can be paid stipends once they leave their colleges or after two or five years from the college exit. This would address problem of cheapening qualities of college athletes.
It is true that purpose of college is learning. Sport too constitutes a part of learning. Success of any sportsperson is not related with just his or her physical strength: it surprisingly involves mental qualities as well. Whether it is physical-centric sports like football and basketball or mental-centric sports like chess, all require a power to endure. Just like ability to read and write opens new windows of opportunity and makes a citizen useful to the society, so is the case with sport. Successful college athletes are, after all, in a better position to handle services that require blend of physical stamina and mental endurance. The nation benefits from grooming of young people who can more easily be assimilated in national services like security forces, state intelligence agencies.
Sport helps in approaching life a more positive way. Current US President Barack Obama is regularly seen taking part in basketball and baseball games. United States of America has made significant wealth through enterprising activities of its people, which is one of the hallmarks of successful athletes. Not surprisingly, state provides a supportive environment for young people to take part in sports. College sport is an excellent way of combining education with athletic endeavor whilst having one’s degree funded through scholarship.
College sport in US in modern times is a big business generating millions of dollars of revenue for individual colleges. It is reported by ESPN that The Longhorns' athletic department made about $45 million from selling tickets to sporting events in 2010. Colleges in Ohio states collectively earned $15.8 million, North Carolina $10.2 million, and Alabama $8.8 million from selling TV, radio, and internet rights. For the University of Central Florida, students are generating almost $15 million of the bill from the athletic department (For more recent data of Sept 2014, click The 20 Colleges that Make the Most Money on Sports). Not surprisingly, such revenues help to make colleges self-sustainable. Colleges can pass this benefit directly to students by reducing their tuition fees, not taking subsidies from state, investing more on educational projects, or paying stipends which is the pertinent topic discussed under this article.
It is to be noted that US state policies do not allow college athletes to be paid stipends. Otherwise, college students would essentially turn out to be employees, changing legal dynamics by making them eligible for workers' compensation and other benefits. According to one commentator, a proposal of $150-per-month stipend for athletic scholarship recipients in football and basketball is sham on the premise of ‘amateurism,’ a cornerstone of college sport.
According to Florida Athletic Director Jeremy Foley, players deserve a share in the huge money generated by commercialization of college sport. Head Ball Coach Steve Spurrier says fifty years ago, there was not any kind of money, and the players got full scholarships. Spurrier, who reportedly earned $2.8 billion in 2011, said that now it truly bothers that he has gotten rich while remuneration of his players has not changed.
Earlier, Spurrier had proposed $300-a-game stipend for college football players. This is interesting. But what about those athletes who do not participate in more profitable games like football and baseball? Understandably, state laws prohibit special concession for a single game. If football is making surplus money, some part of it can be transferred for athletes of other genre. This will lead to balanced growth of all sporting activities. After all, each sport is important in the sense it represents one unique kind of skill development. While more popular games like USC football and Duke basketball will help their players be a part of the huge business they generate in terms of TV shows etc., less popular ones like lacrosse at Johns Hopkins would not be left behind.
If it is feared that rewarding stipends would lead to indiscipline among athletes who are also young college learners, then a system that rewards them after a time lag may be thought of. For instance, athletes can be paid stipends once they leave their colleges or after two or five years from the college exit. This would address problem of cheapening qualities of college athletes.
It appears unfair for athletes who help to generate millions of dollars for colleges and coaches to just remain contended with scholarships. For sports like gymnastics, there is a young age barrier. Those participating in college sport, who are the pillars behind generating huge revenue, should receive a fair share of their efforts. It would be unfair if coaches and other stakeholders benefit disproportionately. At the same time, equal stipend for all athletes would help development of multiple sporting skills in an impartial way.
