So as most people have heard non-stop on ESPN and other sports stations, Johnny Manziel allegedly did the big no-no and got paid for his autograph on certain sports related merchandise. This has been just one occurrence in the never ending debate on whether or not student athletes should be allowed to be paid in any shape or form while in college. Every year another star player gets brought up and accused of receiving benefits while in college, from Terrelle Pryor to Cam Newton to Reggie Bush to Chris Webber. All got in trouble for some sort of wrong doing in the eyes of the NCAA and their respective institutions got the brunt of the punishment. The question remains whether or not college athletes should be allowed to make money off their name in college.
In the case of Manziel, he allegedly got paid to sign autographs. At first glance, this may seem like a big violation in people's eyes. My question is why? Everyone knows the argument that college football players make so much money for their school in some cases, that they should get a cut of it. And everyone knows the counterargument to that, which is they get a free ride to a prestigious college so they don't need to get anything more out of the deal. I am not going to get into the semantics of these two arguments because then we would be here all day while I went back and forth. So I am going to look at in a different light.
I am going to frame my argument in two scenarios. Person A gets a free ride to University of Texas and graduates in four years with a BA in engineering. While in college, he freelances for an IT company and gets paid to do so. He also gets free computer equipment for helping out on the side as a perk of the job. Person B gets a free ride to Texas Tech and graduates in four years with a BA in Sports Management. While in college, he is the QB on the football team and does promotional events for the school. On the side he gets paid to sign a few autographs and gets a free computer for signing a picture. The difference between the two people is that Person B loses his scholarship and his ability to play football strictly because he is a student-athlete. When I look at these two students, I see absolutely no difference. Both are students who got full scholarships to school and both got paid for services rendered and even got a couple perks because of the skills they possess. Yet because one student is an athlete he gets hammered by the NCAA and is stripped of the ability to do what he does best. Why is it that every student has the ability to use their skills while in college to make as much extra money as they can, except for athletes, who cannot use their "fame," so to speak, as a means to make money?
This is just one perspective and one argument on a much larger issue. Some players that I mentioned above, like Reggie Bush, took perks and money from a USC booster as "bribes" to go to the school. That is something that should not be allowed. But a player like Manziel, who gets paid to sign autographs, or Pryor, who signed a jersey for a free tattoo, should not be thrown to the dogs by the NCAA strictly for trying to make cash on the side...it's no different than the average college student working while in school.
I am going to frame my argument in two scenarios. Person A gets a free ride to University of Texas and graduates in four years with a BA in engineering. While in college, he freelances for an IT company and gets paid to do so. He also gets free computer equipment for helping out on the side as a perk of the job. Person B gets a free ride to Texas Tech and graduates in four years with a BA in Sports Management. While in college, he is the QB on the football team and does promotional events for the school. On the side he gets paid to sign a few autographs and gets a free computer for signing a picture. The difference between the two people is that Person B loses his scholarship and his ability to play football strictly because he is a student-athlete. When I look at these two students, I see absolutely no difference. Both are students who got full scholarships to school and both got paid for services rendered and even got a couple perks because of the skills they possess. Yet because one student is an athlete he gets hammered by the NCAA and is stripped of the ability to do what he does best. Why is it that every student has the ability to use their skills while in college to make as much extra money as they can, except for athletes, who cannot use their "fame," so to speak, as a means to make money?
This is just one perspective and one argument on a much larger issue. Some players that I mentioned above, like Reggie Bush, took perks and money from a USC booster as "bribes" to go to the school. That is something that should not be allowed. But a player like Manziel, who gets paid to sign autographs, or Pryor, who signed a jersey for a free tattoo, should not be thrown to the dogs by the NCAA strictly for trying to make cash on the side...it's no different than the average college student working while in school.
I see it in terms of the child vs the adult. If you're over 18, then you should be able to make money selling your name. However, the current rule is that you can't,and even though we all hate that stupid rule, disobeying it has it's punishment. No, it's not fair, and the rule will probably be radically changed soon, but for right now, follow the rules. If you don't, the least you can do is take responsibility for it. If you're old enough to be charged for murder and pay taxes, then you are old enough to follow the rules that nobody forced you to sign up for. I agree with you btw.
ReplyDelete