Arguments Against Paying College Athletes

Paying college athletes has been an ongoing controversy for many years because of the NCAA’s mission to position their athletes as students first and foremost; but, are student athletes really going to college to get an education or to prepare for turning professional. Some argue that athletes are paid already with the compensation given such as free tuition, housing, athletic clothing, etc. However, others claim that athletes are not paid their fair market value. Zach Dirlam, a senior analyst for the Bleacher Report, and Jeff Dorfman, a contributor to Forbs, examine paying college athletes for two different audiences in their respective articles “There’s No Crying in College: The Case Against Paying College Athletes” and “Pay College Athletes?

They’re Already Paid Up To $125,000 Per Year”. Dirlam’s approach is aimed toward younger sports fans who are not as established in life while Dorfman is targeting his article to business professionals with high income and education. Although Dorfman and Dirlam make the same argument regarding not paying college athletes, Dirlam is more successful rhetorically. In particular, Dirlam connects better with his audience because he understands their background when he appeals to their emotion, has logical arguments that conjoin his reasoning to facts, and references reliable sources to support his claims. Despite Dorfman’s having a valid argument, he relies too much on his former position to be considered a reliable source and only connects with the reader through his logical analysis, thus making his article less effective rhetorically.
Both Dirlam and Dorfman use logic appropriately to support their arguments. Logic can be exemplified in Dirlam’s article when he talks about the benefits college athletes receive: “Athletic scholarships cover just about everything a student-athlete needs to survive for four years at a major university, Campus housing, daily medical care, and free means via training table are all included. Tuition and books are covered as well” (Dirlam par. 8). Dirlam begins his article by examining the amount of money given to athletes on scholarship, and then adds how athletes are technically paid even more. These additional benefits are not available to everyone else on campus, giving the athletes an advantage to be successful, no matter their intelligence or background. For example, athletes receive free tutoring, healthy meals, medical expenses, gear, etc. All of these items would normally cost students hundreds or thousands of dollars. Dirlam can further sway his audience since he knows that his audience would most likely not be able to afford all of these expenses. On the other side, Dorfman’s article thoroughly analyzes his statements since he knows his audience, business professionals, will want detailed insight into the situation. For example, when discussing how paying athletes would not only effect the athletic department but also non-student athletes Dorfman adds, “Given that the colleges that lose money from regular student tuition, increasing pay to student athletes could mean tuition increases at many colleges” (par. 8). Specifically here, Dorfman realizes that paying college athletes could further restrict the people eligible to attend college. College is already expensive enough and to pay athletes even more and raising tuition would decrease the number of people in our country who have a college degree. Without a higher level education, people would not be able to get jobs and our country would not be able to proceed forward.
Dorfman strives to exemplify his credibility to his audiences and appeal to the business professionals’ emotions to prove his point; however, he relies too much on his past experience to be deemed reliable and lacks a connection with the reader. To stress his credibility, Dorfman feels that his position as board member of a university’s athletic department validates his argument: “I recently completed a three year term on my university’s athletic association board of directors, so I have examined all the financial statements at one of the most successful and best managed athletic departments in the country” (Dorfman par. 2). In reality, his credibility would have been enhanced if he stated which university he worked for. If Dorfman served on the board of directors at somewhere like Alabama or Tennessee where millions of dollars are made in revenue each year, then his opinions and facts would be completely valid. However, if Dorfman was on the board at an NCAA Division III school, then the validity of his statements and facts would significantly decrease since many of these programs lose money every year. Being that Dorfman’s audience is business professionals, he should know that this type of audience is going to want to know where information came from in order to further research the topic or take note of the source. Additionally, Dorfman was not as successful as Dirlam in connecting with the audience through emotion because he does not apply any methods to connect with the reader. He understands that business professionals are not going to be as emotionally driven as others, rather they will want to know how to interpret the information. If Dorfman would have at least connected with the business professionals in some way he would have garnered more support for his argument.
Dirlam solidifies his credibility as a writer when he provides sources to back up his information and connects well with his audience showing empathy for them, thus making his argument more rhetorically effective.

His article begins by exemplifying credibility when he hyperlinks his figures to certified sources: “Should college athletes get a piece of the $871.6 million pie the NCAA brings in annually?” (Dirlam par. 2). Dirlam does not talk about his experience with sports to develop his reliability, rather he begins by showing that he has done extensive research with his hyperlinked sources. His article can be viewed as credible since he has indisputable evidence to back up his claims. Dirlam, in particular, connects with the reader by appealing to the reader’s emotions, since he has very similar experiences to the intended audience and sympathizes with them when student athletes are compared to average college students. Specifically, Dirlam allures the reader’s emotion when he mentions how each athlete will leave a university free of debt. He continues his sympathy by connecting to the audience when he comments, “I’m willing to bet some of you reading this are still paying off college loans, or took quite a while to do so. Heck, I have racked up over $80,000 in tuition fees over the past four years in college” (Dirlam par. 17-18). College students are burdened with heavy expenses associates with attending college such as student loans, tuition, school supplies, health expenses, fees, clothing, etc. One of the biggest expenses is repaying student loans because not only do the students have to pay the principle amount but also they have to pay high interest rates and fees causing financial stress upon graduation. Athletes, on the other hand, receive all of these items and services listed above for free thus cutting the cost of their attendance significantly. To know that athletes do not have to worry about loans is somewhat frustrating to the readers. The stark

comparison between student athletes and regular college students enables Dirlam to commiserate with the readers by saying that he understands the reader’s situation and feelings. By appealing to the reader’s emotion in a relevant context allows the author’s and reader’s connection to strengthen.
Paying college athletes will continue to be a controversial topic for years to come until a consensus is met between both parties. Dirlam and Dorfman both explore this topic in hopes of persuading their target audiences to take their stance on the issue. Dirlam, however, is the most effective in his rhetoric because he balances his use of building credibility, appeal to emotion, and logical statements. He also fully understand his audience and connects with them on a personal level that further deepens the validity of his argument to the reader. Dorfman does use these tactics, but is more focused on logical statements therefore lacking any connection with the audience. As exemplified by these articles, rhetoric is exceedingly essential when trying to persuade an audience to believe in your opinion. The more an author can connect and understand his/her audience will enable the writer to be successful across an even broader spectrum of people.