“Time Magazine” has a major expose out on why paying college athletes might be the future of college athletics. We at Ivy Coach don’t happen to agree with this, but we’ll entertain their points so that we can respond to them. Essentially, the argument presented in the piece by Sean Gregory entitled “It’s Time to Pay College Athletes” is that why shouldn’t college athletes get paid if they can? Why should the NCAA have regulations about this? Why can’t they get some cash for, say, signing autographs or endorsing a brand of toothpaste?
The article references a specific instance in which Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel was accused of accepting money in exchange for signing autographs. Adrian Peterson of the NFL’s Minnesota Vikings believes that Manziel should have been allowed to accept money without jeapordizing his collegiate football career. He’s performing a service. He should get paid for it. At least that’s what Adrian Peterson believes.
A major argument in support of paying college athletes is that these players may never get to play pro. Maybe they’re not good enough. Few are. Maybe they’ll get injured while playing college ball and, because of this injury, not get the opportunity to get paid as a pro later. We understand this and we do sympathize with college athletes who don’t get to turn pro because of a college injury or series of injuries.
But to pay college athletes while they’re in college would create division among college athletes and non-athletes. It would ruin what is so great about collegiate sports — clean competition where it’s about pride and it’s about representing your university. At least that’s what it’s supposed to be about. Paying college athletes isn’t the answer and this isn’t a problem. If athletes want to get paid, don’t play college sports. Go pro. Play overseas. It’s that simple.