Topic Analysis - PF NCAA Student Athletes
By: Krithika Shamanna and Ananthi Jayasundera
Overview:
The PF resolution for December is... Resolved: NCAA student athletes ought to be recognized as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In terms of framework and definitions, the word “ought” is important.
According to Merriam Webster dictionary, “ought’ implies a moral obligation. When writing cases, it may be strategic to consider both practical and principled arguments (especially important for pro teams!).
Background Info:
The NCAA is a non-profit organization in charge of regulating student athletes.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and youth employment standards affecting employees in the private sector and in federal, state, and local governments.
Pro:
The most common pro argument on this topic is it is unjust for student athletes to generate billions of dollars in profit for the NCAA without compensation because it is a form of exploitation.
An important argument pro argument is that negating endorses racism. There are two main parts to this argument. The first is that college athletes tend to be disproportionality black. Second, the majority of their wealth is controlled by predominately white coaches. This dynamic reinforces an apartheid-like system. Affirming changes this narrative and creates a structural change because athletes are compensated for their work through wages.
Another argument impacting to the idea of structural change is an argument about unions. Recognizing students under the FLSA would mean they get legal support once they officially become employees. This has two main impacts:
Sexism: Affirming upholds Title IX, which guarantees women the same amount of pay as men, stops unfair pay gaps, and reduces any discrepancies with scholarships. (This can be impacted to structural change as well!)
Medicare: If players get injured in the status quo, their coaches can often revoke their scholarships. Affirming prevents this.
Con:
One common argument on the con is that if colleges were forced to pay salaries for student athletes, they would offset the cost by cutting programs from their budget and or increasing tuition for other students. In fact, some argue that a likely source of revenue would be cutting scholarships for non-athletes. Thus, students who depend on scholarships to attend universities would not have an opportunity to do so.
In addition, there is evidence that says because of the difference in taxes, the salary an athlete would be paid is not significantly different than simply receiving a scholarship. At that point, affirming would not be different from the status quo and it also places an additional burden on other students.
Another interesting argument is that negating would violate Title IX. Because Title IX demands equal pay, if colleges cannot afford to pay for everyone, teams argue that male athletes will then be given preference. The impact is an increase in sexist policies and a roadblock to higher education.
Special thanks to Krithika Shamanna from Westwood School in TX and Ananthi Jayasundera from Anderson High School in TX for their expertise!