Enough madness

The arguments made in the article “Enough Madness: Pay College Athletes”

The following essay analyzes the arguments made in the article “Enough Madness: Pay College Athletes”. (Sanderson and Siegfried). The piece discusses the difficulties collegiate athletes encounter when it comes to receiving compensation after competing in intercollegiate competitions. The NCAA’s role in setting boundaries between collegiate and professional sports as well as managing athletes’ money is further examined in the report. In general, the author argues that a balance should be struck between the regular games and the collegiate sports so that it does not happen that the coaches and directors of sports in Universities stand to benefit more than the participants themselves. The analysis will outline the central claims, the pieces of evidence supporting the allegations and the significant assumptions made while making the claims. Sanderson and Siegfried make four points and provide some shreds of evidence for them. The assumptions made in the article will also be analysed.

The First Claim

The first claim is that even as the collegiate games continue to gain popularity across the nation, the financial aspects are also becoming more vital (Sanderson and Siegfried). The author presents three pieces of evidence to support this claim. Firstly, the vast amounts of money collected from those who watch football and men’s basketball games over the television; secondly, the new playoff systems in soccer; and lastly; the robust packages paid to the college coaches after taking students for inter-university competitions (Strachan).

The Second Claim

The second claim that the article makes is that previous studies have revealed that the challenges do not only depend on fee payments to support the sports programs, but also other sources like the donations from the alumni and grants from the well-wishers (Bowen). Despite the fundings, it is apparent that the funding is never enough. To support this claim, the author presents three pieces of evidence. The athletic programs are designed in such a manner that attracts more students who can afford to pay even higher tuition fees; also, NCAA limits the remuneration for the intercollege athletes; and lastly, there is a regulation of the labor market for the players that barred them from participating in other professional championships.

The Third Claim

The third claim that the author presents is that there seems to be a collusion between the NCAA to cap the amount of money payable to the athletes. According to Sanderson and Siegfried, this goes against the regulations put in place to regulate and harmonize the payments to the sportspersons like Sherman’s Antitrust Act (Strachan). The evidence for this claim is the differences in the negotiations for the NFL or NBA and the NCAA. The author indeed asserts that the former will always involve legal teams and negotiators including agents and lawyers, thus leading to the minimal exploitations witnessed in the professional games. For the latter, there is either no negotiations at all or in case of any; then the NCAA is likely to present a team of experts against a young kid and one of his parents, who might also be from a poor social background.

The Fourth Claim

The fourth claim in the article is that coaches and athletic directors take advantage of the young and juvenile college students to benefit more from their efforts. The evidence is that the court of public opinion has been experiencing a lot of unease as the NCAA collect huge revenues from the sporting activities that the university and college students take part in, leading to a creation for a barrier for such students to enter a competitive market (Bowen).

Assumptions

For the author to come up with these claims, the article relied on some assumptions. Apparently, the most obvious assumption is that athletics is the only primary game in the colleges, and the revenues collected only benefits a few individuals within the sports faculty in the schools and universities. The assertion might not be right as there are other games that students can play. NCAA is a non-profit making organization which is solely responsible for managing the athletic programs within the colleges and Universities. Other sporting activities include soccer, indoor games, among others and different rules and regulations govern them. In some of the events, there are no barriers to participation in professional games provided that the minimum requirements are met. Indeed, the high profits that the author claims to be benefiting the coaches and sports directors are also used to support the activities of the institutions and to organize the sporting events.

Summary

In summary, this analysis identifies the four primary claims that the author discusses in the commentary and the assumptions upon which the points have a basis. The explanation has made attempts to highlight some of the grievances through that the collegiate athletes face in their endeavors to make good use of their talents. The two authors, Sanderson and Siegfried, have done an interesting article that may work positively towards facilitating the evolution that has already been witnessed in other social movements. The collegiate sport could indeed follow suit.

Work Cited

Bowen, Glenn A. “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method.” Qualitative Research Journal 9.2 (2009): 27-40.

Sanderson, Allen R., and John J. Siegfried. “Enough madness: Just pay college athletes.” 2 February 2016. Chicago Tribune. 19 November 2017 .

Strachan, Maxwell. “NCAA Schools Can Afford To Pay College Athletes, Economists Say.” 27 March 2015. HuffPost. 19 November 2017 .