Why paying college athletes is a bad idea

President Joe Biden stumbled into a bit of a controversy yesterday when he used racially insensitive language while talking about former MLB pitcher Satchel Paige. October was Italian American History Month. Given that Christopher Columbus Day has become persona non grata because of radical, leftist Democrats, Italian American History Month does not garner the attention it so rightly deserves.

While an admittedly biased Italian American, I am also aware of the significance in celebrating Italian Americans and their numerous contributions to the development of this country. Anti-science zealots are still forcing children to wear masks Zachary Faria. The last three Florida school districts that were mandating masks have finally allowed students to opt out. Man knock it off!

That boy ate some lemon heads before walking into court. ProPublica goes after St. Jude for supposedly not doing enough Becket Adams. In a story involving pediatric catastrophic diseases, ProPublica has identified the real enemy: the nonprofit organization that offers free healthcare to children with life-threatening diseases. Most millionaires would receive a tax cut from the Democrats' "Build Back Better" bill, and many middle-class taxpayers would see a tax increase.

The best college athletes might want to receive payment for their services, but they also gain a lot of valuable publicity from their performance on the field, pitch, or court when playing. It is much easier for a professional team to evaluate the talent of an athlete when there is film available that covers the entirety of their college career.

Some athletes will not receive this benefit, especially if they play in a lower NCAA division. There are limited expenses for students who choose to attend an in-state school as well. It should still be put into the conversation of what students receive in compensation for their services. Only a handful of sports actually make a profit for a school. Most of the other athletics endeavors will generate little revenue while still costing the institution money. The number will fluctuate each year, but that means most athletic departments lose money.

It is also essential to note that every university that ran a surplus in was in an automatic-qualifying conference for the Bowl Championship Series. Adding salary requirements for their athletes would only cost them more money. Do all student-athletes require an equal amount of pay?

When you look at the world of professional sports, most of the athletes that you see performing on the field, court, or pitch are earning the league minimum. MLB and NBA players have lucrative contracts that can pay them hundreds of millions of dollars over their careers, but those are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Superstars make far more than the minimum. Do all student-athletes deserve the same salary since it would be similar to a work-study program if implemented, or do the stars of a team deserve to earn more? It would give student-athletes an opportunity to unionize. If colleges and universities began to pay student-athletes for their services on the field, pitch, or court, then that action would likely be seen legally as an employment contract. That classification would give the athletes in the program an opportunity to unionize throughout most of the United States.

That means teens and their families would need to manage the same conflicts that professional franchises and their professional athletes handle regularly. There might even be contract negotiations to manage in this situation.

The logical outcome from this disadvantage is that the best student-athletes would receive agent representation to maximize the potential of their value. Instead of playing for the joy of the game, there would be an elite group in each division working toward the best possible contract instead. Institutions would likely cut back on their other programs.

Since the money to pay student-athletes must come from a budget line somewhere, there is a strong likelihood that less popular sports would get cut out of the athletics programs of most colleges and universities. In an exchange via text, Kelsey outlined his reasons for supporting payments to student-athletes. College sports is big business, and these athletes deserve what they are worth in the free market just like pro athletes. Universities should stop taking advantage of them. I disagree with the notion that student-athletes receive nothing in return.

If student-athletes take advantage of the educational opportunities given them, a degree from UNC or any other school can allow graduates to earn a good living throughout their career. A debt-free, college education is not a bad deal for anyone. Vandy is indeed a well-to-do private university with an incredible endowment.

Are top colleges and universities earning millions from licensing of their sports apparel and memorabilia? Through a licensing program conceived by former Tennessee Head Football Coach Bill Battle, some schools receive millions of dollars in revenue. Using a portion of those dollars to purchase health insurance for all student-athletes is something I would support.

Some argue compensating college athletes would end the corruption in college sports. I disagree. At best, it would merely shift the corruption to the labor unions, who are salivating at the thought of organizing college athletes.

If you think the current system needs improvement, then wait until the labor goons infiltrate college athletics. Would organizers push to unionize programs in labor-friendly states? I certainly didn't do that. Most athletes don't. The overwhelming majority of the hundreds of thousands of young men and women competing in college athletics are there to pursue a degree while chasing a dream. They have played sports since they were kids, but they know college will prepare them for a career in something other than sports.

Understandably, recent headlines have sparked more debate about the current state of college athletics. Our critics and plaintiffs' lawyers make the case that the entire system is broken and that it's time to pay students a salary.

But if we suddenly allow college athletes in the few sports that generate a profit to be paid, unionize and become employees, what will happen to high school prospects in the process? They will become even more vulnerable. If you pay students a salary, it's only natural that you'll also pay high school kids a signing bonus. That's how it's done in the pros.

What happens if we open the door for those people to try and influence young prospects with money? It would up the ante in a way that hurts young prospects who don't even know where they want to attend college.