Shania Marius 

English 1120

Professor Penner 

October 26 2020 

Annotated Bibliography 

Research Question:

Should college athletes be paid? 

To be paid or not, is a hotly discussed topic in the sports world regarding if collegiate athletes  should be compensated for the revenue they provide these schools with. I first got interested in this question when I found out a D1 basketball athlete withdrew from Memphis University after being suspended by the NCAA for accepting money from scouts to support his mother back home. This led me to question the fairness of the NCAA as an organization overall along with their rules regarding paying athletes. Hard working athletes are not financially compensated throughout their time with the NCAA, when realistically most of them will never have the privilege of receiving a check from any professional association after their tenure as a college athlete. This thought of being unfairly taken advantage of by the NCAA through several avenues  for monetary gain has prompted my desire for further investigation. Everybody around these players are filling their wallets up, but players aren’t given any opportunity to do so too. All athletes deserve to be financially compensated in a way that’s rational, it makes no sense that an industry like the NCAA won’t pay a laboring player like any other industry would. The NCAA is capitalizing off of their star athletes in exchange for nothing in return except a suspension if anyone doesn’t fall in line. Through my research I want to find out if they’re laws in place to help benefit corporations like the NCAA. The measurements that are currently being taken to help pass new laws into effect which will in turn help players support themselves financially even after college.    

Fitzgerald, R.(2013).NCAA players to be paid. Jstor Newspaper Article.13, 1-5. 

    Ryan Fritzgerald, author of “NCAA Players to Be Paid”,begins by mentioning the amateurism issues NCAA football teams currently face as well as the players. He subsequently ponders the question if players should actually get paid for their contributions to their respective organizations, although they’re still just amateurs. He opens his response by revealing that the NCAA garners an estimated ten billion dollars annually, all which players never get to see the light of. Instead, it’s the owners and executives who get to enjoy the fruits of their players’ labor which he finds extremely deplorable. In response to his findings he begins to realize the reality of the situation and wishes the NCAA would slowly die out as a result of their actions. Although now a supporter of NCAA athletes getting paid he wasn’t always on board with the idea, his perspective only began to change after he realized owners were blatantly capitalizing off players’ talents. The author concludes by saying he doesn’t see players getting paid soon because of all the paperwork and rule changes necessary to do so but keeps good faith in compensation some point down the line. 

        The author, Ryan Fritzgerald, is writing to NCAA fans, people who are in support of players getting paid and maybe others that are completely undecided about it. Fritzgerald’s tone, especially in the beginning is extremely contemptuous when he personally insults the President of NCAA operations by saying that he’s “busy fattening his own pockets and making an annual salary of 1.7 million dollars..if there was no amateurism rule Emmert’s salary wouldn’t be that high so for him to sleep with a smile on his face every night in his cushy bed he’d prefer to keep the amateurism rule as long as he can”(Fritzgerald 1). He clearly feels animosity and frustrations towards Emmert’s actions and doesn’t hide it in his speech. Throughout the article he urges people to recognize the blatant injustice being done but sort of digresses towards the end. He changes his tone from fiery to a more realistic one once he recognizes what he wants is only wishful and is rather unlikely but remains hopeful that it may happen in the near future,“I don’t see college athletes being paid anytime soon because the paperwork, rules, regulations would have to be re-written and that massive 400 page rule book would turn into a gigantic 800 page book”. In terms of purpose he wants the audience to recognize that schools are indeed taking advantage of star athletes and people should be upset about it. He proposes that there should be a change to benefit students by letting them get paid while they’re in college which completely ties into his stance as he is in support of college athletes being compensated. Fitzgerald’s work is regarded as a credible source because not only is it written as a newspaper article and only cites NCAA sources/regulations to further his points but is published on a academically trusted website (Jstor).   

         Roebuck, I (2018). Should college athletes be paid? Swim World Magazine 

     Isabelle Roebuck assesses the debate of whether college athletes should or shouldn’t be paid. She acknowledges that it’s a controversial topic and therefore presents both sides to the argument. Roebuck reveals that universities rake in billions of dollars off of athletic revenue yearly from endorsements, and television deals alone. So, it’s no secret that there is profit, but she questions if it’s right or not by breaking down the issue into a list of pros and cons. For her list of pros she hits on a few key points by comparing being in a sport to having a full time job, and the reality that athletes are bringing in serious income into their schools. Conversely, she presents the other side by mentioning that student athletes already receive scholarships as a form of payment, and so if given a salary it would take away from the overall nature of sports. She proceeds to juxtapose the good and bad of both viewpoints but arrives at no concrete answer.  

   Roebuck’s tone was informal and neutral throughout the text as she didn’t explicitly choose a side and leaves the decision up to the reader “there are two sides to every argument. What do you think? Should college athletes get paid? ”. Her passivity enhances her writing and allows the reader to collect their individual thoughts based on the pros and cons of alethic compensation. Compared to other pieces of writing that also give their opinions on this argument Roebuck refrains from doing so and I think part of the reason for it is because she doesn’t have a concrete one. She’s sort of in a grey area and doesn’t per se choose a side but presents both without bias. Thus, allowing the audience to formulate a fair and informed decision. Roebuck purposely wrote this magazine article to compare two sides on the subject in question “let’s really get into it now. Below are a few pros and cons of paying collegiate athletes”. It’s fair to assume that the author wrote this piece without an opinion set in place to appeal to others that are also undecided. As mentioned before, she writes in a neutral stance and doesn’t use information that favors an opinion so that makes her information more fact related than opinion based. That in turn makes her more credible as she is presenting only facts and doesn’t misconstrue them to favor one side over the other. I see this as an informative magazine that will help readers more so understand what both sides stand for individually . 

Bumbaca, C (2019).  “Tim Tebow doesn’t want college athletes to get paid: It’s about your team”.Youtube VID 

Chris Bumbaca, begins by introducing Tim Tebow as a passionate former college football player with ample credibility to speak on the issues college athletes currently face. As no surprise Telbow takes a hard stance against a newly passed California bill that permits college athletes the opportunity to make money off their name and image starting in three years. Tebow explains that he was also a college athlete but didn’t feel the need and neither did he capitalize on his name until he went pro because it’s not about the money at that point. Instead it was a time to learn to work together with your teammates before a player’s selfishness kicks in. 

   Tebow’s tone is passionate towards the idea that players should wait to be paid. Chris Bumbacca however isn’t agreeing with his sentiments but isn’t surprised with the position Tebow would ultimately take“it should come as little surprise that Tebow has taken a hard stance against a California bill passed by the state’s government this week that would allow college athletes to more easily make money off their names.” Bumbaca appeals to those that are in favor of changing the existing rules but Tebow is completely against it. From a viewer’s perspective you can see where Tebow’s argument makes sense but that’s assuming this said athlete actually goes pro. So where does that leave everyone else? Selfishness before teamwork as Tebow illustrated may very well have negative impacts in the long run but not everyone that plays college sports goes on and continues. Espn’s Youtube is a credible source as it features sports analysts and experienced players as guests on the show. Debates like these are fact checked and are answered using evidence and information from sport minded individuals.  As for purpose, Chris Bumbacca invites Tebow onto the show to hear the opinion of someone who has plenty of professional insight to draw from. Tebow’s experience makes him a perfect candidate to speak and express his opinion on this hotly debated topic which in turn brings more media attention to the issue at hand. Grabbing the attention of the public is important when trying to make a change even if it’s a stance that goes against your own which is what Bumbacca was purposely doing. 

   When comparing all the sources there were certain sources that had similar language and structure but each of them maintained their individual sense of purpose and character. Obviously all the sources were debating whether or not college athletes should be paid but some came off differently than others. In “NCAA to be Paid”,Fritzgerald’s tone was personally sarcastic and insolent towards Mark Emmett (the president of the NCAA) but in the end was hopeful towards change. Isabelle Roebuck’s article, “Should College Athletes be Paid” was the odd one out because she remained neutral on the subject in discussion and instead listed numerous possible arguments for both sides “below are a few pros and cons of paying collegiate athletes” and allowed the audience to make a well informed decision based on the information she presented. In the Espn video “Tim Tebow doesn’t want college athletes to be paid” Bumbacca wisely asked a widely respected sports savant Tim Tebow on what his opinion was on college athletes getting paid to bring awareness and more media attention to the topic. 

    Organization and presentation were all similar as they were all published on websites. Bumbaca’s “Tim tebow doesn’t want college athletes to get paid” sampled an idea from a respected sports figure and expanded on it, while the others simply came up with their own ideas based on facts. What surprised me the most was the support of not paying college athletes from a former professional NFL player. It surprised me the most because I didn’t think someone that knows that an injury can derail any player’s career would support not paying college athletes. People that are against college athletes receiving compensation  need to know about this research the most because I feel that it may open their minds to information they’ve never thought about or heard before.  

Citations: 

 Fritzgerald Ryan. “NCAA players to be paid”. Jstor Newspaper Article. 22 September 2013. 

 Robuck Isabelle. “Should College Athletes be Paid?”. Swim World Magazine. 19 October   2018. 

 Bumbaca Chris. “Tim Tebow doesn’t want college athletes to get paid: It’s about your team”. Youtube.com 13 September 2019.