argument top image

Should NCAA athletes be paid?
Back to question

Student-athletes should receive a stipend

An athletic scholarship only covers room and board and the cost of tuition, leaving athletes to fend for themselves when it comes to money for extra expenses.

The Argument

On the surface level, athletic scholarships seem great, but there are tons of costs that they don't cover. Student fees, extra food, and money for laundry may seem like small expenses, but to a student-athlete, they can be financial burdens. Student-athletes devote so much time to their athletic and academic careers that they don't have much time to get a job and make extra money when they need it. A stipend would help alleviate some of these burdens by giving them money for the things they need--whether it be food or clean clothes.[1] For these reasons, every student-athlete should receive a stipend in addition to their athletic scholarships, if any.

Counter arguments

Paying stipends may lead to more corruption or an unequal playing field when schools recruit players. It may result in the best players going to the school with the biggest stipend payments, causing NCAA games to be incredibly mismatched.



Rejecting the premises


This page was last edited on Sunday, 9 Aug 2020 at 20:15 UTC

Explore related arguments