A2 NEG March 2023

Weighing
Overviews
Student welfare first
You should evaluate the welfare of student athletes first:
1)They are the one’s forgotten most in college sports- coaches are payed, colleges get
endorsement deals and TV adds, however; college athletes are rarely discussed.
2)Student athletes always get the short end of the stick- their lives are controlled,
their educational choices are controlled, etc.
AT weigh all students
An observation- You should prioritize the welfare of student athletes. The resolution
has a massive impact on student athletes- while only a minor impact on the entire
student body. McGirt of Villanova University explains universities owe student
athletes a heightened duty of case because a. the time commitment for a student
athlete is like a full-time job and b. athletic departments control all aspects of the lives
of student athletes, including social activities and academic decisions.
Michelle D. McGirt, “Do Universities Have a Special Duty of Care to Protect Student-Athletes
from Injury”, Villanova University, 1999, DA: 11/26/17,
https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/
&httpsr edir=1&article=1224&context=mslj
The differences between student-athletes and private students illustrate another reason why
universities should owe student-athletes a heightened duty of care.49 The most basic distinction involves the control
universities maintain over their studentathletes.50 The time commitment required for an athlete participating in a
sport is similar to that of a full-time job, and it may be more physically or emotionally demanding. 51
Additionally, university athletic departments control virtually all aspects of the lives of student-athletes,
including social activities and academic decisions.5 2 Often, athletic coaches and departments encourage student-athletes to
select less demanding majors so that they can have more time to devote to athletics. 55 In some cases, athletes do not even look at course
descriptions or educational requirements because coaches automatically register the students for a selected curriculum. 54 It is "[t]his limited
personal autonomy during college [which] distinguishes the student-athlete from the private student. '55
FW
Only D1
Only D1 school should be evaluated and only D1 players should receive compensation
1)It’s what the literature talks about- all the topic literature discusses paying D1
athletes, so it provides the most education debate
2)New rules regarding player compensation only apply to D1 schools- so it’s the
most logical
AT Neg (contentions)
AT squo better
AT scholarships solve
A/2 College athletes are already paid through scholarships
According to the most reliable source,

NCSA College Recruiting, xx-xx-xxxx, "Athletic Scholarship Facts,"
https://www.ncsasports.org/recruiting/how-to-get-recruited/scholarship-facts
Most student-athletes do not receive a full-ride scholarship —in fact, only 1 percent do. Still, full-
ride scholarships as the goal for many athletes, as they typically cover tuition and fees, books, room and board, supplies, and
sometimes even living expenses. If you receive a scholarship for a D1 headcount sport, you’re guaranteed a full-ride. But there are
only six headcount sports. If you play an equivalency sport, you can increase your chances of getting more scholarship money. For
example, if you fill a specific and important role on the team—such as a baseball or softball pitcher—you’re more likely to receive a
larger offer. You can also use the leverage of multiple recruiting offers to get coaches to increase the amount they are willing to give
you. Sometimes, just moving down a division level will get you more money. A lower-level recruit for D1 might receive a larger
scholarship at the D2 level.
Even this 1% is not enough
Fulton explains in 2014 the average “full” athletic scholarship left players with over
3,000 in out-of-pocket expenses.
April Fulton is a former editor with NPR's Science Desk and a contributor to The Salt, NPR's Food Blog.
“Hunger Games: College Athletes Make Play For Collective Bargaining”, NPR, 04/21/14, DA: 11/21/17,
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/04/21/304196202/hunger-games-college-athletes-make-
pla y-for-collective-bargaining //ME
It's hard to determine how many student-athletes actually go hungry, let alone how many students overall go hungry . Since many
students on scholarship come from low-income families who would otherwise not be able to pay for
college, and the NCAA restricts a student-athlete's ability to get a job, it's a safe bet that there are some
gaps. In fact, the average "full" athletic scholarship left college players with $3,285 in out-of-pocket
expenses during the 2011-'12 school year ng to a recent NCPA-Drexel University Sport Management Department report. Still, there's no
, accordi
denying that when Napier said he was hungry, it moved the ball forward.
hat’s why Dr. Edelman explains in 2017 85% of college athletes live below the poverty
line
Professor Marc Edelman (Marc@MarcEdelman.com) is a tenured Professor of Law at the Zicklin School
of Business, Baruch College, City University of New York. He is also an adjunct professor at Fordham
University School of Law and a columnist for Forbes SportsMoney. Professor Edelman advises numerous
businesses on legal issues related to antitrust, gaming, intellectual property, collective bargaining, and
sports law. He thanks Baruch College graduate student Caroline Porter for her research assistance. “THE
FUTURE OF COLLEGE ATHLETE PLAYERS UNIONS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM NORTHWESTERN
UNIVERSITY AND POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS IN THE COLLEGE ATHLETES’ RIGHTS MOVEMENT”, Cardozo
Law Review, 2017, DA: 11/15/17,
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=7621271251131251271050940240830730921210710090
350590501170121050000781261090310921260501010980440420400420670971150710780900911040
38000
060086099103108071126119081005023050081021019124007122014007002105001088003003108107
097124107127095104093065107120105&EXT=pdf //ME
University of California, Berkeley sociology professor Dr. Harry Edwards often describes efforts to change the labor dynamics in bigtime college
sports as “the civil rights movement in sports of our time.”11 Big-time college sports represent a more than $11 billion industry in the United
States.12 At present, forty-nine
college athletic departments earn annual revenues that exceed $70 million .13
Meanwhile,twenty-fourathletic departments earn annual revenues that exceed $100 million.14 NCAA
member colleges use the revenues derived from college sports not only to operate their athletic
programs, but also for “windfall payments” to administrators, athletic directors, and coaches.15 In 2013,
NCAA member colleges paid their association president, Mark Emmert, a salary of $1.8 million.16 Colleges also paid the commissioners of the
five largest collegiate athletic conferences salaries ranging between $2.1 million and $3.5 million.17 By contrast, colleges share little, if
any, of their athletic revenue with the athletes.18 According to statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Education,
eighty-five percent of college athletes live below the poverty line.19 Meanwhile, a typical FBS football or
Division I
men’s basketball player amasses several thousand dollars of debt before graduating from college .20 In the
worst cases,this debt has led to revenue-generating athletes lacking enough money to even buy groceries or
afford late-night snacks.21 Beyond these financial inequities of big-time college sports, many colleges further
disadvantage their athletes by monopolizing their time with sports-related activities .22 Most colleges
require their Division I men’s basketball and FBS football players to devote upwards of forty hours per
week to their sport, notwithstanding academic and personal time commitments .23 Colleges with big-time
football and men’s basketball programs also may compel their athletes to select academic majors that
minimize classroom duties, and encourage athletes to enroll in courses that do not meet during the
coach’s preferred practice schedules.24
2)Most students don’t have a scholarship, or at least not a full ride- however; they’re
still living in poverty. Holland and Schoen explain in 2014 the average amount
awarded to D1 athletes was approximately $14,000.
Kelley Holland | John W. Schoen, “Think athletic scholarships are a 'holy grail'? Think again”, CNBC,
10/13/14, DA: 11/24/17,
https://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/13/think-athletic-scholarships-are-a-holy-grail-think-again.html //ME
Stand long enough on the sidelines of any youth sports tournament and you will hear conversations about coaches, sports travel, and the cost
of uniforms and gear. What you may not hear about—but what parents say is a near universal obsession—is the dream of college athletic
scholarships. "That scholarship is the holy grail," said Greg Earhart, a swimming coach at Arizona State University. But does the reality of athletic
scholarships match the fantasy? Hardly. While tens of thousands of athletes will head off to visit colleges this fall hoping to be recruited, only a
small fraction will make the cut. Even fewer will get scholarships. And for those who do end up playing in college, whether on scholarship or not,
the experience may be very different from what they imagined. Just 3.3 percent of high school seniors playing men's basketball will have roster
positions on NCAA teams as freshmen—with or without scholarships, according to NCAA data. For women, the figure is 3.7 percent.The odds
are almost as slim in men's soccer, football, and baseball. The chance of getting an athletic scholarship is even smaller, even for students whose
parents can devote the hundreds of hours--and thousands of dollars--that high-level youth sports often require. Put
another way, the
odds of landing a college scholarship in many major sports are lower than the chances of being admitted
to Harvard, Yale, Princeton or Stanford. Overall, colleges and universities awarded more than $3 billion
in athletic scholarships in 2013, but very few of those were full rides. In most sports, coaches are allowed
to divvy up scholarships. In 2013, the average amount of money awarded to NCAA Division 1 athletes
was $13,821 for men and $14,660 for women. Other divisions offer less, and Division 3 schools offer no
athletic scholarships at all. "There's this great myth about how many scholarships there are out there," said Earhart. There's also a lot
of pressure on those who do get athletic scholarships. Long practice hours, diminished fan attendance, and life on a different schedule from
most students can take their toll on young athletes—as can the physical intensity of the sport itself.
A/2 NIL
1. [Dl] Hunzinger 22 finds that the average annual compensation for an athlete in division 1 is only
$3711, whereas the average cost of college according to Song 18 is around 50,000. This means
NIL deals are not nearly enough money to pay for college.
2. D2 and D3 players have it worse as they get 7% of what the D1 players make, as they make
around $200-$300 annually
Erica Hunzinger, 7-7-2022, "One year of NIL: How much have athletes made?," NBC New York,
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/sports/one-year-of-nil-how-much-have-athletes-made/3765040/
It’s a broad range. INFLCR’s overall average NIL transaction value is $1,815 through June 30. Athliance, another disclosure
platform, has an average value of $1,524.58. Though the true picture may lie in INFLCR’s median NIL transaction value of $53.
The Opendorse platform said average annual compensation for an athlete in NCAA Divisions I-III combined is
$3,438 ( through May 31). By division, DI athletes saw an average of $3,711, $204 in DII and $309 in DIII. Football
NIL deals tend to be hefty, with an average of $3,390.95 on Athliance and $3,396 on INFLCR. Opendorse broke down average
compensation per football position, ranging from $403 for a specialist, $758 for the defensive line and $2,128 for quarterback.
Justin Song, xx-xx-xx[18], "Average Cost of College in America," ValuePenguin, https://www.valuepenguin.com/student-

loans/average-cost-of-college
Our researchers found that the average cost of college for the 2017–2018 school year was $20,770 for public schools
(in-state) and $46,950 for nonprofit private schools, only including tuition, fees, and room and board. Each year, school costs
have continued to increase, even accounting for inflation. We took a look at higher education data from the College Board to
provide a deeper understanding of the costs and the differences between states, school types and degrees.
AT amateurism good
1)Even if they prove amateurism is good, students aren’t being treated like
amateurism- they’re being treated like pro’s. Williams writes in 2014 athletes can
work over 80 hours a week on academics, practices, at the gym, etc. Which is far more
challenging than most full-time jobs.
Armstrong Williams is the author of “Reawakening Virtues.” He is a political commentator who writes
a conservative newspaper column, hosts a nationally syndicated TV program called “The Right Side,”
and hosts a daily radio show on Sirius/XM Power 128. “Time to Pay College Athletes”, Newsmax,
04/09/14, DA: 11/20/17,
https://www.newsmax.com/ArmstrongWilliams/NCAA-college-athletes-nlrb/2014/04/09/id/
564508/ //ME
Students who play college sports at an elite level work way over a typical 40-hour work week. Along
with a full schedule of classes, these players must spent hours in the gym, attend long practices, and
travel all over the country to play the sport they love. According to a 2011 survey conducted by the NCAA, college
football players spend an average of 43.3 hours on their sport and an average of 38 hours on academics .
These kids’ 81 hour work week is far more challenging than many full time jobs. The NCAA and college universities
have taken advantage of college athletes for far too long and their excuses have run dry. The rules of the game must change.
College athletes deserve to be treated fairly and given a just compensation for the services they provide .
The status quo is unacceptable.
AT athletes pay taxes

Dr. Edelman explains in 2017 any attempt to use tax liability as the reason to avoid
paying athletes misconstrues U.S. tax codes. He furthers college would pay
athletes with “qualified scholarships” under section 117 of U.S. tax codes, or would
use a formal education assistance program or pay would be regarded as a “no-
additional-cost service”
Professor Marc Edelman (Marc@MarcEdelman.com) is a tenured Professor of Law at the Zicklin
School of Business, Baruch College, City University of New York. He is also an adjunct professor at
Fordham University School of Law and advises numerous businesses on legal issues related to
antitrust, gaming, intellectual property, collective bargaining, business and sports law. He is currently
ranked among the top 600 most downloaded authors on the Social Science Research Network
(“SSRN”). “FROM STUDENT-ATHLETES TO EMPLOYEE-ATHLETES: WHY A “PAY FOR PLAY” MODEL OF
COLLEGE SPORTS WOULD NOT NECESSARILY MAKE EDUCATIONAL SCHOLARSHIPS TAXABLE”, Boston
College Law Review, 09/19/17, DA: 11/26/17,
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3597&context=bclr //ME Nevertheless, any
attempts to use purported tax liability as the reason to avoid the “pay for play” model either
misconstrues the plain meaning of the U.S. tax code or is simply disingenuous. Even if college sports were to move
to a “pay for play” model, with careful tax planning, colleges could likely continue to provide their athletes with
“qualified scholarships” under § 117 of the U.S. tax code. In addition, colleges most likely could continue to
offer their athletes tax savings through a formal “education assistance program” or by providing
education as a “working condition fringe” or “noadditional-cost service.” Based on the foregoing,there is
reasonable uncertainty as to whether colleges that hire “pay for play” athletes would ever need to treat
their athletes’ free education as taxable. Thus, the argument that a “pay for play” model of college sports would transform all
college athletic scholarships into taxable gains is far weaker than “pay for play” opponents would have people to believe. Although there may
indeed be good faith reasons for the concern over shifting college sports to a “pay for play” model, claims that “pay for play” would
impose colossal tax liability on college athletes are simply dubious.
AT Less athlete financial aid

1)Payment gives athletes more money. Dr. McCormick of Michigan State calculated
the hourly wage of an athlete if scholarships were counted as their income and found
they make less than minimum wage. Even if most athletes are not paid a lot, they
would
have to be paid at least minimum wage, and thus would make more money than
they do right now.
https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.washingtonpost.com/
ne ws/wonk/wp/2017/02/04/how-white-racism-keeps-black-college-sports-stars-from-getting-paid/?
utm_t erm=.8158c037b078&httpsredir=1&article=1239&context=facpubs “The Emperor's New Clothes:
Lifting the NCAA's Veil of Amateurism” 2008 by Amy McCormick of the University of Michigan
In spite of its obviously commercial nature, however, the NCAA "clings to the ideal of the 'amateur'
student-athlete ' 9 to avoid paying wages to college players.60 By limiting athletes' compensation to the
cost of attending a university rather than to a competitive market wage, the NCAA has enabled its
member institutions to limit their labor costs significantly. And while the NCAA and its members reap
billions of dollars in revenues, the average "student-athlete" earns less than the federal minimum
wage.6 ' In fact, many such athletes live below the poverty line.62
2)Athletic Scholarships are bad. Pennington of the New York Times explains in 2008
that athletic scholarships require students to spend exorbitant amounts of time on
sports, limiting their academic opportunities. He continues that because of these
limitations, many students end up giving up their scholarships after only one or two
years. Paying student athletes allows them to pay for college, eliminating these
restrictions.
Bill Pennington, New York Times, 2008,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/sports/10scholarships.html
The best-laid plans of coaches do not always bring harmony on teams, however, and scholarships can be at the heart of the unrest. Who is
getting how much tends to get around like the salaries in a workplace. The
result — scholarship envy — can divide teams.
The chase for a scholarship has another side that is rarely discussed. Although those athletes who receive athletic aid
are viewed as the ultimate winners, they typically find the demands on their time, minds and bodies in college even more taxing than the long
journey to get there. There
are 6 a.m. weight-lifting sessions, exhausting practices, team meetings, study halls
and long trips to games. Their varsity commitments often limit the courses they can take. Athletes also
share a frustrating feeling of estrangement from the rest of the student body, which views them as the
privileged ones. In this setting, it is not uncommon for first- and second-year athletes to relinquish their
scholarships. “Kids who have worked their whole life trying to get a scholarship think the hard part is over when they get the college
money,” said Tim Poydenis, a senior at Villanova receiving $3,000 a year to play baseball. “They don’t know that it’s a whole new monster
when you get here. Yes, all the hard work paid off. And now you have to work harder.”
3)No one is getting athletic scholarships. Holland of CNBC finds in 2014 that it’s
literally easier to get into Harvard or Stanford than get an athletic scholarship.
Kelly Holland, CNBC,
https://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/13/think-athletic-scholarships-are-a-holy-grail-think-again.html , 2014
Just 3.3 percent of high school seniors playing men's basketball will have roster positions on NCAA
teams as freshmen—with or without scholarships, according to NCAA data. For women, the figure is 3.7
percent. The odds are almost as slim in men's soccer, football, and baseball. The chance of getting an
athletic scholarship is even smaller, even for students whose parents can devote the hundreds of
hours--and thousands of dollars--that high-level youth sports often require. Put another way, the odds
of landing a college scholarship in many major sports are lower than the chances of being admitted to
Harvard, Yale, Princeton or Stanford. Read MoreTop colleges' acceptance rates drop Overall, colleges and universities awarded
more than $3 billion in athletic scholarships in 2013, but very few of those were full rides. In most sports, coaches are allowed to divvy up
scholarships. In 2013, the average amount of money awarded to NCAA Division 1 athletes was $13,821 for men and $14,660 for women.
Other divisions offer less, and Division 3 schools offer no athletic scholarships at all. "There's this great myth about how many scholarships
there are out there," said Earhart. There's also a lot of pressure on those who do get athletic scholarships. Long practice hours, diminished fan
attendance, and life on a different schedule from most students can take their toll on young athletes—as can the physical intensity of the
sport itself.
Sports Recruits quantifies, finding that only 2% of high school athletes get athletic
scholarships in the status quo.
http://sportsrecruits.com/blog/2017/08/10/athletic-scholarships-good-bad-ugly/ , 2017 Athletic scholarships
at the NCAA Division I and Division II levels are a huge draw for athletes and families. Keep in mind that for NCAA Division III and
select Division I schools (notably those competing in the Ivy League), there are no athletic scholarships.
According to the NCAA, about 2 percent of high school athletes will receive some form of an athletic
scholarship. Be realistic when exploring your options, and do your research! The NCAA strictly limits the number of
scholarships that each school can distribute. Athletic scholarships are divided into two types: headcount scholarships and equivalency
scholarships. The most notable distinction between the two is that headcount scholarships award full-rides, while equivalency scholarships
award partial aid. Head count full-ride scholarships are the more favorable award, but also very rare. Take a look at which sports fall under the
head count scholarship sports category. You’ll notice it’s limited to only a handful of sports, as opposed to equivalency scholarships, which span
a far greater range
4)Holland furthers that most athletic scholarships aren’t even full ride. Division
I athletes only got an average of $13,000.
Kelly Holland, CNBC,
https://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/13/think-athletic-scholarships-are-a-holy-grail-think-again.html , 2014
Overall, colleges and universities awarded more than $3 billion in athletic scholarships in 2013, but
very few of those were full rides. In most sports, coaches are allowed to divvy up scholarships. In 2013,
the average amount of money awarded to NCAA Division 1 athletes was $13,821 for men and $14,660
for women. Other divisions offer less, and Division 3 schools offer no athletic scholarships at all. "There's this great myth about how many
scholarships there are out there," said Earhart. There's also a lot of pressure on those who do get athletic scholarships. Long practice hours,
diminished fan attendance, and life on a different schedule from most students can take their toll on young athletes—as can the physical
intensity of the sport itself.
Moreover, NCAA statistics show that Division II and III athletes don’t
receive substantial athletic scholarships.
http://www.ncaa.org/champion/how-ncaa-works “How the NCAA works” by Amy Schwarb of the NCAA
Division II The division offers athletics scholarships and limits competitive and practice seasons to improve balance with student pursuits
The 307 colleges and universities in Division II share a commitment to providing college athletes equal
growth opportunities in academics, athletics, and campus and community involvement. Division II
schools generally spend less money on athletics than Division I schools and operate on a partial-
scholarship model, in which 56 percent of the 119,000 Division II athletes receive some athletics-based
financial aid. Full scholarships that cover all of a college athlete’s expenses are uncommon in the
division; often college athletes, like the rest of the student body, use a mix of academic scholarships, student loans and employment
earnings to fund their education. Division II prides itself on creating unique championship opportunities. It is the only division to host
championship festivals, where multiple championships are held in the same city over several days. During these championships, teams
participate in community engagement efforts, a key component of Division II. One in every seven athletes earns the chance to compete for a
national title, the highest ratio in the NCAA.
AT education
AT only way
1)College sports maybe the only way for an individual to get a college education but
that doesn’t make it acceptable for a student to get a comparatively worse
education or be exploited by a college for personal gain. Dr. Beamon writes in 2008
college athletes education is undermined because
a. Student’s are forced into majors they don’t want because it aligns better with
practice time
b. Student’s don’t have time to study
Krystal K. Beamon University of Texas-Arlington “"Used Goods": Former African American College
Student-Athletes' Perception of Exploitation by Division I Universities” The Journal of Negro Education,
Fall 2008, DA: 11/15/17, file:///C:/Users/Madel/Downloads/25608704.pdf //ME The educational
attainment of student-athletes is frequently hindered by athletic training and travel; and student-
athletes often find it difficult to balance athletics, academics, and social roles . Athletes have less time
available for the educational process that "extends beyond going to class everyday to socializing with
research and study groups, participating with student organizations, and attending campus activities
apart from athletics" (Hawkins, 1999, p. 8). Additionally, due to psychological and physical fatigue from sports
participation, student-athletes have decreased levels of motivation to study and diminished abilities to
benefit from institutional assistance, such as tutorial programs and counseling (Beamon & Bell, 2002; Person, Benson-Quaziena, &
Rogers, 2001). African American males are seen as particularly vulnerable to these circumstances since they often enter college with general
background disadvantages (e.g., socioeconomic status, academic preparedness) and goal-discrepancy concerning professional sports careers
(Roscigno, 1999; Sellers & Kuperminc, 1997).
Student-athletes work under numerous constraints. These constraints
include the inability to change majors or drop courses because of eligibility requirements or choose
majors that may offer courses during times set aside for sports participation (i.e. majors such as
architecture or chemistry with afternoon labs). While students who are not athletes have the freedom
to explore courses and majors, spend time on internships, drop and add courses with changing needs
and focus on finding a career that suits their abilities, many student-athletes do not share these liberties.
In order to remain eligible, student-athletes are often pushed into choosing majors that are most
compatible with athletic participation, even if they are uninterested or unprepared for those majors
(Adler & Adler, 1987; Cornelius, 1995).
That’s why she quantifies- scholarships are only worth 5% of athletes contributions.
Fall 2008, DA: 11/15/17, file:///C:/Users/Madel/Downloads/25608704.pdf //ME No one would have anticipated
that on August 3, 1852, when Harvard and Yale met in the first intercollegiate athletic event, a rowing contest, that such a lasting marriage
between the universities and athletics would begin (Lewis, 1970). Today, universities use the commercialization of their sports programs to
generate revenue, increase visibility, recruit students, and receive alumni support, which creates a pressure to win (Donnor, 2005; Upthegrove,
Roscigno, & Charles, 1999). Due to their ability to raise the university's profile and add to the profitability of a school's athletic programs,
exceptional athletes are of great financial value to universities. As
a result of overrepresentation of African Americans in
revenue-generating sports, it is estimated that these student-athletes have earned more than a quarter
of a trillion dollars over a 40-year period; and even if 100% of African American athletes earned degrees,
the economic value of those degrees would only be 5% of the total value of their athletic contribution
(Watkins study as cited in Salome, 2005). The need for superior athletes to maintain team performance and
produce revenue may cause institutions to neglect their educational responsibilities to student athletes
by creating contradictory pressures that place the role of student and the role athlete at odds(Edwards,
2000; Hoberman, 2000; Upthegrove, Roscigno, & Charles, 1999). One of the alleged
negative consequences of the relationship between the athletic and educational institutions is the
exploitation of student-athletes for their athletic ability (Donnor, 2005). Specifically, the exploitation is especially
significant to African Americans in revenue-generating sports because they often create "enough revenue to financially underwrite the non-
revenue-producing athletic sports such as crew, swimming, tennis and golf that are overwhelmingly populated by white middle and upper class
students" (Donnor, 2005, p. 48). With the clear emphasis placed on the physical capabilities of student-athletes,
their academic capacities and role as a student are often overlooked (Eitzen, 2000, 2003; Hawkins, 1999; Litsky, 2003;
Maloney & McCormick, 1993). Sack and Stuarowsky (1998) discussed this emphasis by stating, " Universities are far more
concerned with exploiting the athletic talent [of student athletes] than with nurturing academic
potential" (p. 104). It has been noted thatsome student-athletes are academically unprepared for college and a
gap exists in the graduation rates of African American student-athletes compared to White student-athletes (Benson, 2000;
Edwards, 1983; Lapchick, 1996; Washington & Karen, 2001). In 2006, African American football players graduated from
Division I institutions at a rate that was 12% lower than that of their White teammates , 62% for Whites
and 49% for African Americans(National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, 2006). White male basketball players at
Division I institutions graduate at a rate of 51%, while African Americans graduate at a rate of 41% (NCAA,
2006). A more accurate statistic is the graduation success rate which adds in student-athletes who enter mid year or transfer into an institution
and subtracts those with allowable exclusion and those who would otherwise be deemed academically ineligible on returning to an institution
(NCAA, 2006). The graduation success rate differentials by race are even more staggering. In football the rate is 77% for Whites and 55% for
African Americans and in men's basketball the rate is 76% for Whites and 51% for African Americans (NCAA, 2006). Football and basketball
powerhouses are ranked each year by USA Today; at eleven of those top twenty football and basketball programs, the graduation differentials
between African Americans and Whites were greater than the national average ("African American College Athletes," 2002 ).
While
student-athletes often fulfill their obligation to the university by performing athletically and bringing
notoriety to the universities, all too often Black students do not see the benefits of their labor by playing
professionally or earning a degree. Of those who do graduate, many graduate in less marketable majors
"riddled with 'keep 'em eligible' less competitive 'jock courses' of dubious educational value and
occupational relevance" (Edwards, 1988, p. 138). Exploitation has been alleged in studies and commentaries (Donnor, 2005; Hawkins,
1999). Meggysey (2000) stated that the NCAA and its member institutions "exploit the talent of Black athletes and
deny these same athletes access to a quality education" as well as limiting "employment opportunities
of Black athletes after their career ends" (p. 27).
2)College athletes improve education for everyone. Harvard Business School explains
in 2013 success in college athletics increases applications to a school by nearly 20%
and increases the quality of applications to improve the school’s overall academics.
Harvard Business School Working Knowledge- We offer an accessible look at the latest research and
ideas from the faculty of Harvard Business School. We cover a vast array of topics, including finance,
globalization, team leadership, corporate social responsibility, regulatory issues, social media
marketing, and neuroscience. Our primary goal is to share knowledge that business practitioners can
incorporate into their everyday roles as managers, leaders and innovators. “The Flutie Effect: How
Athletic Success Boosts College Applications”, 04/29/13, DA: 11/20/17,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/04/29/the-flutie-effect-how-athletic-
success -boosts-college-applications/#1c970ccc6e96 //ME
Enter Chung, whose recent research paper, The Dynamic Advertising Effect of Collegiate Athletics, shows how on-field
heroics can
benefit schools by increasing both the quantity and the quality of students they can expect to attract . His
findings include: When a school rises from mediocre to great on the gridiron, applications increase by 18.7
percent. To attain similar effects, a school has to either lower tuition by 3.8 percent or increase the
quality of its education by recruiting higher-quality faculty, who are paid 5 percent more than their
average peers in the academic labor market. Students with lower-than-average SAT scores tended to have a stronger
preference
for schools known for athletic success, while students with higher SAT scores preferred institutions with greater academic quality. Also,
students with lower academic prowess valued the success of intercollegiate athletics for longer periods of time than the high SAT achievers.
Even students with high SAT scores are significantly affected by athletic success—one of the biggest
surprises from the research, Chung says. Schools become more academically selective with athletic success. Although a boost in
applications is a good outcome, there are a variety of other reasons why schools invest in sports. A primary reason, says Chung, is to further the
NCAA's commitment to diversity and morale. Schools also build sports programs because it can be financially beneficial to do so—
intercollegiate sporting events generated an estimated $2 billion in revenue and $1 billion in profit in 2010 .
Winning programs
prosper in diverse ways including ticket and product sales, alumni donations, and TV contracts. Chung is
currently studying the effect of winning on revenues.
That creates a better school, with more successful students, more

alumina donations and all around a better educational atmosphere to
improve student’s education.
AT athletes higher grad rates

1)This is false- Trahan writes in 2014 athletes graduate at rates 18% lower
than non-athletes.
Kevin Trahan covers college football and basketball, and NCAA legal issues for SB Nation. He is the co-
founder of SB Nation's Northwestern site, InsideNU.com. A soon-to-be senior at Northwestern, he's
proud to call himself an Iowan. “Athletes are getting degrees, but does that actually mean anything?”,
SB Nation, 07/09/14, DA: 11/20/17,
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/7/9/5885433/ncaa-trial-student-athletes-
education //ME
The NCAA's argument ignores the fact that some degrees are worth far more than others. Athletes are routinely clustered into
majors that don't set them up to succeed later in life, mainly because those majors are easy enough for
athletes to focus on their sport. If an athlete majors in interdepartmental studies or general studies,
either because that's all they could handle or the coach tells them to , has the school done that student a service? Is
that athlete really going to have a "degree to fall back on" if sports don't work out, as the NCAA often touts? The NCAA and
its member schools will have you believe that if they help graduate an athlete they have done that athlete life's greatest favor. If the athlete
even asks for the right to bargain, it would be considered an act of sheer entitlement. If all degrees were treated equally, that argument would
have at least some legitimacy. Given how the academic experience for many athletes actually works, it could not be further from the truth.
Former Florida State football player and Rhodes Scholar Myron Rolle was at Wednesday's hearing, and as he said, you would think he would be
singing the NCAA's praises as a success story. However, while Rolle was in a fortunate situation and set up to succeed, many of his teammates
were not and often graduated with relatively worthless degrees. The first response to this quote will be someone saying something like this:
"Well it's their fault they did nothing with their opportunities." That would be true if the athletes wasted their abilities, and maybe it is true in
some cases. However, many schools recruit athletes who are in no way able to do college work (the latest examples
have come at Oklahoma State and North Carolina). Former North Carolina football player Devon Ramsay saw that firsthand. The result is a
focus on eligibility rather than education. That isn't to say schools are committing academic fraud to keep
athletes eligible, just that they put them in easy majors — and things that really aren't even majors, like
general studies. These majors allow players to get easy degrees that give them little chance of finding a
job consistent with their peers, many of whom had more time and academic prowess to spend on more
challenging majors or will go to graduate school. Not only has the NCAA done a good job of framing a
"success" as receiving a degree rather than receiving the education necessary to get a job, it has also
created its own graduation rate to paint a better picture than the federal graduation rates . While the NCAA
claims athletes graduate at a higher rate than the general student body, the federal rates show the opposite. Throughout Division I's Football
Bowl Series programs, the 2013 football report found (findings are published quarterly by sport ),
athletes who entered college in
2005 graduated at rates 18 percentage points lower than non-athletes, and black players lagged by 24
percentage points. This makes clear what should be already: The NCAA and its member schools care far more about
the appearance of educating athletes than they do actually educating athletes . The goal is to win, and to
make winning look good in the process, regardless of the reality. If the NCAA really did care about its
athletes' futures, it would allow them to profit off their talent while they were in college . The NCAA
would recognize that their time demands, and in some cases their inability to handle the workload of a
major that could get them a good job, might inhibit their well-being after graduating. They could spend
even more money on tutors and internship programs and make sure athletes really are ready to enter
the workforce, rather than pretend players benefit from coaches making more money. But they don't have to do that. The NCAA knows
they have an endless supply of athletes who recognize college as the only way for them to achieve the dream of becoming a professional
athlete. Then they can keep on talking about graduation rates, and keep pretending they're doing a service to everyone who walks out with a
degree.
ESPN explains the discrepancy in their numbers- writing their analysis is including
graduate numbers of Ivy League schools which is problematic because the Ivy League
does not award based on athletic performance.
Associated Press, “Six-year grad rate at all-time high”, ESPN, 10/25/11, DA: 11/22/17,
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7148351/ncaa-reports-improvements-athlete-
graduatio n-success-rates //ME
One possible explanation for the record numbers is a first-time inclusion of Ivy League schools in the
annual report. Those schools had not previously been included because the Ivy League does not award
scholarships based on athletic performance. The NCAA contends that while the Ivy League schools did
have a significant impact on the Football Championship Subdivision numbers, it had a minimal impact on
the across-the-board numbers. For instance, the overall one-year grad rate would have still been a
record 81 percent even without the Ivy League schools.
2)Even if that’s true- athletes have received a much worse education. Simon writes
in 2017 to keep athletes eligible for competition, schools will encourage phony
course, unearned grades and tutors who write papers and take tests for athletes.
David M. Simon is a lawyer in Chicago. “End NCAA cheating and corruption: Just pay student athletes,”
The Washington Times, 08/28/17, DA: 11/13/17,
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/end-ncaa-cheating-and-corruption-just-pay-student-athletes/
artic le/2632529 //ME
To keep athletes eligible for competition, schools will facilitate, encourage, or at least turned a blind eye
towards phony courses, unearned grades, and tutors who write papers and take tests for athletes . It's all
been done before. In 2016, Inside Higher Ed reported that "43 percent of all universities that play in the high-profile
Football Bowl Subdivision and more than half the members of the Power Five conferences committed
major violations of National Collegiate Athletic Association rules in the last decade." Notable universities
on this list include Alabama, Cal-Berkeley, Florida, Georgetown, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio State,
Oklahoma, Princeton, and Southern California. After decades of scandal, more corruption seems inevitable. It is not.
Two basic but radical reforms will end the corruption and at the same time benefit athletes. First, eliminate the NCAA rules that
ban payments to athletes. These rules keep at least the reported prices for athletes' services below
prices that schools and athletes otherwise would freely negotiate. Like other regimes that control prices,
these rules have produced a black market that facilitates payment of undisclosed and illicit higher prices .
Eliminating these payment limits would end the corruption associated with incentives and
compensation. No more under-the-table payments. No more jobs and other benefits for undeserving
family and friends. No more hiring escorts.
Furthermore, Dr. Beamon writes in 2008 college athletes education is undermined
because student’s are forced into majors they don’t want because it aligns better
with practice time
Fall 2008, DA: 11/15/17, file:///C:/Users/Madel/Downloads/25608704.pdf //ME The educational
attainment of student-athletes is frequently hindered by athletic training and travel; and student-
athletes often find it difficult to balance athletics, academics, and social roles . Athletes have less time
available for the educational process that "extends beyond going to class everyday to socializing with
research and study groups, participating with student organizations, and attending campus activities
apart from athletics" (Hawkins, 1999, p. 8). Additionally, due to psychological and physical fatigue from sports
participation, student-athletes have decreased levels of motivation to study and diminished abilities to
benefit from institutional assistance, such as tutorial programs and counseling (Beamon & Bell, 2002; Person, Benson-Quaziena, &
Rogers, 2001). African American males are seen as particularly vulnerable to these circumstances since they often enter college with general
background disadvantages (e.g., socioeconomic status, academic preparedness) and goal-discrepancy concerning professional sports careers
(Roscigno, 1999; Sellers & Kuperminc, 1997).
Student-athletes work under numerous constraints. These constraints
include the inability to change majors or drop courses because of eligibility requirements or choose
majors that may offer courses during times set aside for sports participation (i.e. majors such as
architecture or chemistry with afternoon labs). While students who are not athletes have the freedom
to explore courses and majors, spend time on internships, drop and add courses with changing needs
and focus on finding a career that suits their abilities, many student-athletes do not share these liberties.
In order to remain eligible, student-athletes are often pushed into choosing majors that are most
compatible with athletic participation, even if they are uninterested or unprepared for those majors
(Adler & Adler, 1987; Cornelius, 1995).
AT competition
AT competitive balance
1)Dr. Berri explains in 2016 paying athletes would limit the ability for a select few
schools to dominate. Powerful schools could not afford to give massive salaries to
their excellent athletes who sit on the bench. For example, Kentucky has five players
sit on the bench who would start at other schools and Kentucky’s not going to spend
money paying their salary.
David J. Berri, Paying NCAA Athletes, 26 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 479 (2016) Available
at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol26/iss2/11//SP
So it seems clear that college athletes are frequently exploited by the NCAA. It also seems clear that the obvious solution is for the NCAA to
abide by the same rules we see in labor markets in non-sports industries. Specifically, it is illegal—outside of sports—for firms to collude to
limit the compensation of employees. A
free market for labor in college sports would likely limit the ability of
teams like the University of Kentucky to dominate college basketball. As noted, the 2014 edition of this team had six
different players drafted by the NBA. Four other players were ranked in the top twenty of their respective high school recruiting class.
Kentucky’s roster during the 2014–2015 season had ten highly ranked basketball prospects, which meant at
any given time, five
players sat on the bench at Kentucky who would likely have started for most of the other 350 Division I-
A teams. Kentucky was able to stockpile this talent because the compensation of all college athletes is
capped. But what if that was not the case? If teams faced a free market for labor, then the wages of these
athletes would likely be
increased to a point where wages approximated economic value. And as we noted, that economic value
—if colleges followed the NBA model—often exceeds $1 million for the stars. It is unlikely Kentucky
would give $1 million to an athlete who does not play full-time. And that means some of these players
who attended Kentucky during the 2014–2015 season would have gone elsewhere in a free market.
Those who remained, though, would be paid more. Where would this money come from? One obvious
source is the salaries paid to the head coach. Again, John Calipari’s wage rivals what we see in the NBA.
But revenues for Calipari’s program do not justify such a wage. This wage is only possible because
players are not paid according to the free market. The decrease in coaches’ salaries would not be the only impact of a free
market for college athletes. Essentially anyone currently benefitting from the present labor market might see his or her benefits reduced. And if
the courts ever agreed that collusion in college sports is indeed illegal, that would likely be the outcome.
2)Paying athletes incentivizes competition. Strachan explains in 2015 professional

athletes are all payed on different pay scales- yet the competitive balance isn’t ruined.
In fact, it shifts the athletes thinking to if I play harder, and the better my
performance, the more compensation I can receive.
Maxwell Strachan is a senior reporter at HuffPost. “NCAA Schools Can Absolutely Afford To Pay
College Athletes, Economists Say”, Huffington Post, 03/27/15, DA: 11/24/17,
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/ncaa-pay-student-athletes_n_6940836.html //ME The
NCAA has defended its no-pay rules on many different grounds. One of particular interest is it claims
that compensating student-athletes would destroy competitive balance in college sports. There’s
absolutely no logic to this statement. As a former professional athlete and someone who coaches many professional athletes,
we’re all on different pay scales. Corporate executives earn different amounts of money; pro athletes
earn different amounts of money. If anything, waving greenbacks in front of the athletes would be more
motivation and increase that competitive spirit. The athlete has a shift in thinking that says, “The harder
I play and the better my performance, the more compensation I can receive.” There’s certainly no destruction of
competitive balance in that logic. This is America. This is the basic premise of free enterprise and capitalism. It teaches these kids to equate
making money with performance. The bottom line is it’s time to pay college athletes. The NCAA is a big business, and like any other big
business, it must take care of its greatest assets - its athletes.
AT bidding war
1)There’s no bidding war- players are dispersed more equally. Dr. Berri explains in
2016 paying athletes would limit the ability for a select few schools to dominate.
Powerful schools could not afford to give massive salaries to their excellent athletes
who sit on the bench. For example, Kentucky has five players sit on the bench who
would start at other schools and Kentucky’s not going to spend money paying their
salary. David J. Berri, Paying NCAA Athletes, 26 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 479 (2016) Available at:
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol26/iss2/11//SP
limit the compensation of employees. A
free market for labor in college sports would likely limit the ability of
teams like the University of Kentucky to dominate college basketball. As noted, the 2014 edition of this team had six
different players drafted by the NBA. Four other players were ranked in the top twenty of their respective high school recruiting class.
Kentucky’s roster during the 2014–2015 season had ten highly ranked basketball prospects, which meant at
any given time, five
players sat on the bench at Kentucky who would likely have started for most of the other 350 Division I-
A teams. Kentucky was able to stockpile this talent because the compensation of all college athletes is
capped. But what if that
was not the case? If teams faced a free market for labor, then the wages of these athletes would likely be
AT cuts non-revenue sports

AT Sports Will Collapse
1)This is empirically not true, Dr. Belzer of Rutgers explains in 2012 that college
athletes are like baseball players a few decades ago, when rules mandated players
stayed on the team they were originally signed on to, limiting competition between
teams to attract players. People then predicted baseball would collapse if they allowed
players the rights they currently have. It didn’t.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2012/07/25/national-letter-of-indenture-why-college-
athle tes-are-similar-to-indentured-servants-of-colonial-times/2/ “National Letter of Indenture: Why
College Athletes are Similar to Indentured Servants of Colonial Times” July 2012 by Jason Belzer of
Rutgers College athletes are much closer in their economic situation to baseball players in the days of
the Reserve Clause prior to free agency. Under the reserve clause system, a player was bound
permanently to the team who signed him first. When a contract ran out, all Major League teams
colluded, agreeing not to make an offer to another team’s player. In a very real sense, this put him in a
state of permanent indenture -- Curt Flood famously called himself a “well-paid slave” -- and as a result teams could drive
very hard salary bargains. In a seminal work in sports economics, Gerald Sculley found that before free agency
introduced a relatively free market for players, players earned approximately 20% of the rate that would
prevail in a free market. But when a free market loomed, the presidents of the National and American
Leagues, Chub Feeney and Joe Cronin, concluded that without the reserve clause, “Professional baseball would simply cease
to exist.” Even George Steinbrenner famously said that “I am dead set against free agency. … It can ruin baseball.” Despite these dire
predictions, 36
years after the end of the reserve clause, the demise of the multi-billion dollar baseball
industry has yet to materialize.
Belzer furthers that the Olympics once had an amateur code, and its supporters made
the same argument about how the event would collapse if athletes were paid. People
said the same thing about abolishing slavery and the economy collapsing. These
predictions have been proven wrong time and time again; there is no reason to believe
college sports will be any different.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2012/07/25/national-letter-of-indenture-why-college-
athle tes-are-similar-to-indentured-servants-of-colonial-times/4/#8a6b3611caa6 “National Letter of
Indenture: Why College Athletes are Similar to Indentured Servants of Colonial Times” July 2012 by
Jason Belzer of Rutgers
Left unsaid is what would happen if schools did not collude to fix prices, but instead had to compete for talent, much as farmers and
merchants had to compete for the contracts of the indentured servants they sought to employ. As shown above, this collusion likely costs
college football and basketball athletes tens or hundreds of thousands of dollar per year. And predictions
that the sport is too
fragile to survive the hurly burly of competition seem as likely to prove true as those who predicted
baseball’s demise in the wake of free agency or of the supporter of the strict Olympic amateur code
who in 1960 told Sports Illustrated’s Charles Thayer that “if we water down the rules now, …the Games
will be destroyed within eight years.” Those predictions proved as true as those of U.S. Senator William
Harper, who claimed that American civilization itself could not survive without slavery, arguing . “ …the
institution of slavery is a principal cause of civilization. … Without it, there can be no accumulation of
property, no providence for the future, no tastes for comfort or elegancies, which are the
characteristics and essentials of civilization.”
2)Katie Baird of the University of Washington empirically finds that not paying
student athletes have no effect on the competitiveness of the sports.
https://digitalcommons.tacoma.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/
&httpsr edir=1&article=1027&context=ias_pub “Dominance in College Football and the Role of
Scholarship Restrictions” 2004 by Katie Baird of the University of Washington
Unlike professional sports, the degree of imbalance in college football has received surprisingly little attention. Do competitive-balance
concerns help justify restrictions on player pay? Do they contribute to leveling the playing field? This study reveals tbat college football play
departs substantially from an ideal of complete competitive balance on the field. Even if it were the case that restrictions on player
compensation do, ceteris paribus, improve balance, then, clearly, this alone is hardly sufficient to bring about a reasonable amount of balance
within (and among) college conferences. To
the contrary, however, the findings here support the position that
restrictions on player pay - analogous to a salary cap in professional sports—have had no effect on
college football's competitive balance.
Indeed, she finds that there is currently a lack of competitiveness, which makes sense
because the same group of schools win everything every year.
https://digitalcommons.tacoma.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/
&httpsr edir=1&article=1027&context=ias_pub “Dominance in College Football and the Role of
Scholarship Restrictions” 2004 by Katie Baird of the University of Washington
To date, research on the role of player pay in competitive-balance outcomes in college football has been theoretically and empirically unclear.
Understanding this relationship is important insofar as it pertains to the justification for player pay restrictions—restrictions that are becoming
more severe as the revenue that players generate increases. Understanding the determinants of competitive balance is important, too,
because it influences the issue of how fairly the increasing financial gains (and losses) in college football are distributed among teams.
Evidence indicatesthat a school's revenue from football is related to the school's ability to win football games (Padilla & Baumer, 1994);
a persistent lack of competitive balance suggests an unequal, and possibly unfair, division of the gains from college football
across different schools. In an era of rising financial rewards for select college athletic departments, assessing the effectiveness and fairness of
existing institutions in distributing these gains is important. Rising football revenue (either actual or potential) has fostered rapid increases in
expenditures on football facilities and coaches’ salaries (Sokolove, 2002; Witosky. 2002). Paradoxically, however, this also coincides with
decreases in the share of revenue going to the players themselves.
AT College Money
AT not enough $ to pay
1)Most schools can pay. Dr. Acain explains most colleges have around $5 million
in profits. If they average around 300 athletes that leaves a couple million left-
over.
Michael P. Acain, “Revenue Sharing: A Simple Cure for the Exploitation of College Athletes”, Loyola
Law Review, 01/01/1998, DA: 11/19/17,
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1359&context=elr //ME These figures result in
huge profits for each school. For example, Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") records from the 1994-95 academic year reveal that each
university associated with the Atlantic Coast Conference ("ACC") received an average of $5.64 million in
total profits from all athletic teams.' 5 Likewise, members of the Southeastern Conference ("SEC")
received an average of $4.55 million during the same period. 16 Although these totals may appear staggering,they do
not account for the intangible income produced by contracts with outside sources . 17 Shoe companies,
for example, contract with universities and coaches to have athletic teams wear their products and
logos.18 Using the money gained directly and indirectly from the performance of athletes on the field,
colleges and universities have the means to fund their athletic programs appropriately . However, the
college athlete, who is the primary source of this revenue, receives absolutely no portion of the profits.'
9 NCAA rules prohibiting college athletes from receiving compensation breed inequality and exploit the
athletes upon whom the universities depend.
As, Gaines of Business Insider reports in 2011 that paying student athletes would only
cost 50.6 million dollars annually, spread across all NCAA universities. This makes
more logical sense than the cost analysis they give you because universities won’t be
paying every athlete high salaries, just the best ones, lowering the overall cost. He
furthers that this cost pales in comparison to the income generated.
http://www.businessinsider.com/paying-college-athletes-would-cost-200-million-each-year-2011-8
“Paying College Athletes Would Cost $200 Million Each Year” August 2011 by Cork Gaines of
Business Insider
In order to pay the athletes, the schools would need only to re-classify the athletes as employees and
pay them through the Federal Work-Study Program (FWS). In essence, being a football player would be
considered that students "job" during the school year, a consideration that doesn't require much of a stretch. FWS is a
federally-funded aid program that gives students jobs during the school year in which they can earn up to a certain amount of money based on
need. Students can work up to 20 hours per week and can earn up to $4,000 during the school year and
$3,000 during the summer. Typically, the Federal government contributes 75 percent of the students
pay with the rest paid by the school. During the 2010 fiscal year, nearly $1.2 billion was awarded to over 750 thousand students
through FWS. In 2009-10, there were approximately 167 thousand Division 1 athletes. If every athlete received the maximum award ($7,000),
that would require addition FWS funding of $1.17 billion each year, with more than $876 million coming from the Federal government. That
seems unlikely. But if need determines that the average award for the athletes is the same as other students ($1,524, with some receiving
more, some receiving less), the total cost of the program comes down to $255 million each year, with the schools only responsible for $63.6
million and the rest coming from the Federal government. And this assumes all athletes need some assistance. According to the Federal
government, 79.5 percent of full-time students receive some form of financial aid. If that same number is applied to college athletes, the
total cost of the program is now $202 million each year, with $50.6 million coming from the schools . $50.6
million? The BCS alone distributed more than $174 million for its five bowl games this season. You don't think
the NCAA and its member schools can find $50.6 million to pay all of the division 1 athletes that need assistance. Of course, this won't eliminate
the extreme corruption. If Nevin Shapiro comes along and offers players $20,000 and a boatload of strippers, some players are still going to take
it even if they are getting paid. Some will always want more no matter how much the NCAA gives them. But $50.6 million in order to make sure
that the athletes that need help get some additional needed assistance? The NCAA could write that check tomorrow. But will
2)Strachan writes in 2015 the money is already there. athletic departments do not
they?
lose money, they just alter the numbers a.) to look poor to get more funding and b.) to
keep their non-profit status by spending everything.
Maxwell Strachan is a senior reporter at HuffPost. “NCAA Schools Can Absolutely Afford To Pay
College Athletes, Economists Say”, Huffington Post, 03/27/15, DA: 11/24/17,
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/ncaa-pay-student-athletes_n_6940836.html //ME But when
The Huffington Post asked five sports economists whether the NCAA and its member institutions could afford to pay student-athletes, the
response was quite different: a resounding yes. Some of the economists were almost surprised by the question; the answer seemed so obvious
to them. “It’s pretty clear that they would be able to,” said David Berri, a professor of economics at Southern Utah University. “ I
don’t see
any reason that they wouldn’t be able to, in fact.” As Rodney Fort, a sports economist and professor of sports management at
the University of Michigan, succinctly put it, “The money is already there.” The NCAA alone brought in nearly a billion
dollars in revenue in its most recent financial year, and top-tier athletic programs regularly bring in tens
of millions of dollars as well. Sure, you might say, there’s a lot of money coming in. But if the schools are still losing
money or only breaking even on their sports programs, won’t additional labor costs hurt those programs
and the schools? “That’s a silly argument,” Berri said. “They’re nonprofits, and their incentive is to spend
every cent that comes in.” “That doesn’t mean they aren’t making money,” he added. “That just means they
spent all of it.” Duke’s athletic program, for example, pulled in revenue of nearly $80 million during a
recent fiscal year. But it ended up with just $146,000 in excess revenue . That’s also why the NCAA had a
surplus of only $80 million on $989 million in revenue for its last fiscal year. The system is set up so that
almost all the money that comes in from college athletics is soon spent. “Schools quite often move
around or spend money to basically get rid of excess revenue — what would be called profit in a profit-
making corporation,” said Michael Leeds, a professor of economics at Temple University. “‘[That’s why] you have several coaches [in the
NCAA] getting paid NFL money, despite working for an enterprise that really does not match what the New England Patriots and the New York
Giants take in.” That would explain why some universities end up with state-of-the-art sports facilities. Or why Duke basketball coach Mike
Krzyzewski makes nearly $10 million per year, much more than the typical NBA coach. Or why in so many states, the best-paid public employee
is a basketball or football coach. To
pay the players would simply require a reallocation of resources, the
economists said. Assuming the university declined to increase the football or basketball team’s funding,
that program would just have to move the money from some other part of its budget .
3) Kristine Mueller of DePaul University explains that schools would not raise tuition
or cut financial aid as it limits their applicant pool to those who can afford it.
http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1081&context=jslcp “No Control Over their
Rights of Publicity: College Athletes Left Sitting the Bench” 2004 by Kristine Mueller of DePaul University
There have been suggestions for creating additional revenues, which include increasing student activity
fees, increasing tuition and ticket prices, soliciting corporate sponsorship, creating a national football
championship playoff, reducing available football scholarships, and requesting professional leagues,
such as the NFL, NBA and WNBA to provide support of collegiate athletics, as they are in essence, the minor leagues
to these professional leagues.147 It seems unlikely that many of these suggestions would be favored. Increasing
tuition and fees may restrict students that do not receive athletic scholarships from being able to attend
universities, and reducing athletic scholarships may prevent student-athletes who could not otherwise
afford college from attending. Soliciting corporate benefactors and the professional leagues to provide support would in effect
create more costs as additional personnel would be needed to do the soliciting.
Thus, Dr. Berri furthers in 2016 colleges would most likely cut coaches multi-million-
dollar salaries to pay athletes salaries, ultimately ending the exploitive system of
inequality.
limit
the compensation of employees. A free market for labor in college sports would likely limit the ability of teams
like the University of Kentucky to dominate college basketball. As noted, the 2014 edition of this team had six different
players drafted by the NBA. Four other players were ranked in the top twenty of their respective high school recruiting class. Kentucky’s roster
during the 2014–2015 season had ten highly ranked basketball prospects, which meant at
any given time, five players sat on the
bench at Kentucky who would likely have started for most of the other 350 Division I-A teams. Kentucky
was able to stockpile this talent because the compensation of all college athletes is capped . But what if that
Cost turns
1)Paying athletes means athletes must pay taxes and that money is reinvested
into essential government programs- such as education.
AT costs non-athletes
1)Even if they win this argument- it is a couple hundred dollars, per student, at
most, there’s no tangible impact to this.
2)Kristine Mueller of DePaul University explains that schools would not raise tuition
or cut financial aid as it limits their applicant pool to those who can afford it.
http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1081&context=jslcp “No Control Over their
Rights of Publicity: College Athletes Left Sitting the Bench” 2004 by Kristine Mueller of DePaul University
There have been suggestions for creating additional revenues, which include increasing student activity
fees, increasing tuition and ticket prices, soliciting corporate sponsorship, creating a national football
championship playoff, reducing available football scholarships, and requesting professional leagues,
such as the NFL, NBA and WNBA to provide support of collegiate athletics, as they are in essence, the minor leagues
to these professional leagues.147 It seems unlikely that many of these suggestions would be favored. Increasing
tuition and fees may restrict students that do not receive athletic scholarships from being able to attend
universities, and reducing athletic scholarships may prevent student-athletes who could not otherwise
afford college from attending. Soliciting corporate benefactors and the professional leagues to provide support would in effect
create more costs as additional personnel would be needed to do the soliciting.
Thus, Dr. Berri furthers in 2016 colleges would most likely cut coaches multi-million-
dollar salaries to pay athletes salaries, ultimately ending the exploitive system of
inequality.
limit
the compensation of employees. A
free market for labor in college sports would likely limit the ability of teams
3)Hobson of the Washington Post explains in 2015 that colleges are currently rolling
back the student fees allocated to athletics because students don’t want their tuition
money funding programs they may never use. These nonexistent fees can’t increase.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/why-students-foot-the-bill-for-college-sports-and-how-some-
a re-fighting-back/2015/11/30/7ca47476-8d3e-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html?
utm_term=.97c2c9d7 4f95 “Why students foot the bill for college sports, and how some are fighting
back” November 2015 by Will Hobson of the Washington Post
As more money has come in, a few schools have gotten rid of student athletic fees, including both
powerhouse Alabama ($147.2 million in 2014 athletics earnings) and middle-of-the-pack Missouri
($82.2 million). “We take pride in the fact that we carry our own weight and pay our own way,” said Tim Hickman, Missouri athletics
chief financial officer. This fall, Kansas State athletics announced it would phase out its student fee by 2020 .
In 2014, Kansas State athletics made $72.4 million and charged $500,695 in student fees. “If you look at the financial pressure
on students, the increased cost of tuition . . . it was time to have those dollars be available for other
things,” Kansas State Athletic Director John Currie said.
4)College athletes increase funding for everyone. Harvard Business School explains in
2013 success in college athletics increases applications to a school by nearly 20% and
increases the quality of applications to improve the school’s overall academics.
Harvard Business School Working Knowledge- We offer an accessible look at the latest research and
ideas from the faculty of Harvard Business School. We cover a vast array of topics, including finance,
globalization, team leadership, corporate social responsibility, regulatory issues, social media
marketing, and neuroscience. Our primary goal is to share knowledge that business practitioners can
incorporate into their everyday roles as managers, leaders and innovators. “The Flutie Effect: How
Athletic Success Boosts College Applications”, 04/29/13, DA: 11/20/17,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/04/29/the-flutie-effect-how-athletic-
success -boosts-college-applications/#1c970ccc6e96 //ME
Enter Chung, whose recent research paper, The Dynamic Advertising Effect of Collegiate Athletics, shows how on-field heroics can
benefit schools by increasing both the quantity and the quality of students they can expect to attract . His
findings include: When a school rises from mediocre to great on the gridiron, applications increase by 18.7
percent. To attain similar effects, a school has to either lower tuition by 3.8 percent or increase the
quality of its education by recruiting higher-quality faculty, who are paid 5 percent more than their
average peers in the academic labor market. Students with lower-than-average SAT scores tended to have a stronger
preference for schools known for athletic success, while students with higher SAT scores preferred institutions with greater academic quality.
Also, students with lower academic prowess valued the success of intercollegiate athletics for longer periods of time than the high SAT
achievers. Even
students with high SAT scores are significantly affected by athletic success—one of the
biggest surprises from the research, Chung says. Schools become more academically selective with athletic success. Although a
boost in applications is a good outcome, there are a variety of other reasons why schools invest in sports. A primary reason, says Chung, is to
further the NCAA's commitment to diversity and morale. Schools also build sports programs because it can be financially beneficial to do so—
intercollegiate sporting events generated an estimated $2 billion in revenue and $1 billion in profit in 2010 .
Winning programs
prosper in diverse ways including ticket and product sales, alumni donations, and TV contracts. Chung is
currently studying the effect of winning on revenues.
That creates a better school, with more successful students and a better
educational atmosphere, massively increasing alumni funding.
AT less sports support

Dr. Acain explains this is not true- consumers are attracted to collegiate teams
because of their university affiliation and fans will continue to watch. If anything, this
is a turn because in some instances popular demand and support for schools increased
after schools violated amateurism bylaws.
Michael P. Acain, “Revenue Sharing: A Simple Cure for the Exploitation of College Athletes”, Loyola
Law Review, 01/01/1998, DA: 11/19/17,
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1359&context=elr //ME The NCAA's focus
on amateurism does not help promote college sports. 190 Most consumers are attracted to collegiate
teams because of their university affiliation. 191 Accordingly, fan interest in collegiate sports is unlikely to be
deterred simply because student-athletes received some form of compensation . 192 It is the student-
athlete's association with an educational institution, not the wages of the players that attracts the
public's interest. Perhaps more fatal is the fact that limited compensation rules do not promote intercollegiate athletics because many
NCAA institutions frequently violate the rule. 194 Furthermore, consumer demand for college 193 sports does not decline
when a university is found to violate NCAA eligibility rules. 195 In some instances, popular demand and
support for certain schools actually increased after violating amateurism bylaws. 1 96 Consequently, neither the
NCAA's claim to promote education nor its desire to preserve amateurism present a valid pro-competitive justification for its rules regarding
compensation. Because these rules are anti-competitive and present no compelling pro-competitive objectives, the NCAA cannot justify their
implementation. Thus, these regulations must be struck down subject to section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.197
AT corruption
AT corrupt enterprise
1)Payment reduces corruption. Dr. Edleman explains in 2017 in the absent of free
markets for college athletes’ services, darker and more dubious markets emerge
that
are the breeding ground for corruption. For example, when the U.S. disallowed
commercial gambling there was an emergence of an underground gambling
economy. However, he finds paying athletes facilitates negotiations above the table-
minimizing corruption.
Marc Edelman (Marc@MarcEdelman.com) is a Professor of Law at Baruch College’s Zicklin School of
Business and the founder of Edelman Law. He is the author of "A Short Treatise on Amateurism and
Antitrust Law." In addition, his article, “The Future of College Athlete Players Unions,” appears in
Volume 38 of Cardozo Law Review. “Corruption Will Continue In NCAA College Basketball Until Schools
Can Openly Pay Their Players”, Forbes, 09/27/17, DA: 11/24/17,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2017/09/27/corruption-will-continue-in-ncaa-college-
bask etball/#7f76f43b3315 //ME
College sports in the United States is an $11 billion industry, with almost all of the money derived from just a small collection of schools
competing in two sports: football and men's basketball. Despite
the riches, NCAA rules continue to prevent member
colleges from compensating athletes, under the guise of amateurism. In the absence of free markets for
college athletes' services, darker and more dubious markets emerge that are an ideal breeding ground
for unscrupulous individuals to engage in schemes to defraud college athletes and exploit their labor .
We've seen similar phenomena elsewhere around the world where free markets have been inhibited by either private or
public legislation. During the final years before the fall of the Soviet Union, organized crime maintained
black markets for the purchase of luxury goods that Russian entrepreneurs could not sell openly . Similarly,
in the United States, legislation that disallowed commercial gambling in most states led to the
emergence of an underground gambling economy, led by racketeers associated with organized crime .
The underlying cause for free market suppression in the college basketball labor market, however, is a
bit different in the sense that the underlying restraint is more private than public . In the Russian business and
U.S. gambling scenarios, the lack of free markets arises from specific government legislation that, at least according to the government, is
intended for societal well-being. By contrast, in the case of college sports, laws such as the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act and the
Uniform Athlete Agent Act only tangentially serve to inhibit college athlete pay. Rather, the absence of a free market for colleges to purchase
elite athletes' services derives most directly from the NCAA's internal principle of amateurism ― a
restraint of trade intended to
keep revenue in the hands of a select few coaches, administrators and schools. While the recent federal
charges against the men's basketball coaches at certain elite NCAA colleges may lead to the punishment
of some of the unseemly characters operating in the shadows of this underground economy, these
charges are unlikely to bring down the full cast of bad actors. There are countless other examples of the NCAA's no-pay
rules inviting other forms of black-market behavior, such as the scandal at Louisville University in which college athletes were paid under the
table with sex. There are likely many other scandals awaiting discovery that no one has yet reported to the feds. Perhaps
the only way
to truly stamp out bribery and corruption in big-time college sports would be to overturn the NCAA's no-
pay rules as a restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act ― thus shifting the effort by
colleges to recruit elite athletes to particular schools to the surface. While doing so may destroy the halo provided by
the ideal of amateurism, at least a free market will facilitate negotiations between the many constituencies in
college sports above the table ― minimizing any incentive to turn to covert means to pursue efficient
markets.
1)Collective bargaining checks corrupt practices. Dr. McCormick explains in 2006

employee athletes would be entitled to forming themselves into unions to bargain
collectively with their employers and their right to strike would be protected. This
is
critical because athletes can bargain for new reform and check the institutions in
charge of them.
Robert A. McCormick, Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law, B.A., Michigan State
University, 1969, J.D., University of Michigan, 1973. Amy Christian McCormick, Professor of Law,
Michigan State University College of Law, B.S.B.A., Georgetown University, 1988, J.D., Harvard Law
School, 1991. “The Myth of the Student-Athlete: The College Athlete as Employee”, The Washington
Law Review, 01/01/06, DA: 11/20/17,
https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/
&httpsred ir=1&article=1240&context=facpubs //ME
While some outcomes of this revolution cannot be fully known, many can. Among other things, these employee-athletes would earn
a negotiated wage, like other employees. 37 They would also be entitled to form themselves into unions to bargain
collectively with their employers through representatives of their own choosing, and their right to strike
would be federally protected.38 And while the challenges of reforming college sports to meet the
commands of the law would necessarily be great, they are by no means insurmountable. In fact, wisely
applying the law and properly characterizing the labor that produces this uniquely American product
would place college athletics upon a more just, honest, and ultimately sane path than the one it is
currently taking.39
AT No Reform
1)Collective bargaining powers mean athletes can demand reform. Dr. McCormick
explains in 2006 employee athletes would be entitled to forming themselves into
unions to bargain collectively with their employers and their right to strike would be
protected. This is critical because athletes can bargain for new reform. Robert A.
McCormick, Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law, B.A., Michigan State University,
1969, J.D., University of Michigan, 1973. Amy Christian McCormick, Professor of Law, Michigan State
University College of Law, B.S.B.A., Georgetown University, 1988, J.D., Harvard Law School, 1991. “The
Myth of the Student-Athlete: The College Athlete as Employee”, The Washington Law Review, 01/01/06,
DA: 11/20/17,
currently taking.39
AT Discrimination
AT sexism
1)New writes in 2016 currently college athletics have an institutional sexism problem
due to the broader problem of male privilege. There are tons of examples of
discrimination against female athletes- adopting a pay for play system doesn’t make
the current problem worse.
Jake New, Reporter, covers student life and athletics for Inside Higher Ed. He joined the publication in
June 2014 after writing for the Chronicle of Higher Education and covering education technology for
eCampus News. For his work at the Chronicle covering legal disputes between academic publishers and
critical librarians, he was awarded the David W. Miller Award for Young Journalists. His work has also
appeared in the Bloomington Herald-Times, Indianapolis Monthly, Slate, PBS, Times Higher Education
and the Australian. Jake studied journalism at Indiana University, where he was editor-in-chief of the
Indiana Daily Student. “'Supposed to Be Our Brothers'”, Insider Higher Edu, 11/08/16, DA: 11/21/17,
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/11/08/harvard-sexism-scandal-reveals-larger-concerns-
ov er-how-female-athletes-are-treated //ME
Instead, Harvard’s men’s soccer team adopted a sexist tradition of rating and discussing, in explicit detail,
the physical attributes of their female counterparts. Harvard’s men’s cross-country team created a spreadsheet commenting
on women’s team members in similar sexually explicit terms. Earlier this year, two Texas A&M football coaches were
suspended after they organized a “women’s football clinic” that included a sexist version of the
university’s fight song and faux instructions, filled with sexual innuendo, on how female fans should play
football. In 2013, Tufts University suspended 27 male lacrosse players for shouting sexist comments at
players during a women's volley ball game. "I think this speaks to the broader question of male privilege,
particularly as it links to notions of masculinity and superiority ," said Mary Jo Kane, director of the University of
Minnesota’s Tucker Center for Research on Girls and Women in Sport. "How better to contain that progress -- that entry
into upsetting and undermining male certainties of privilege, until recently always and reassuringly
anchored in sports -- than to sexualize female athletes?" The sexist actions of some male athletes, and
the culture surrounding those behaviors, aren't limited to just misogynistic comments. A female former track
and field athlete at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln sued the university in April, saying she was abused by a Nebraska athlete
and that when she reported the domestic violence, she was harassed and discriminated against by the
athletic department. A former Kent State University softball player is suing officials there after she said she was raped by a
baseball player and the athletic department colluded with the accused student’s mother, who was also
the woman's softball coach, to cover up the case. A number of victims at the center of the sexual assault scandal involving
Baylor University football players were female athletes. “Harvard is just another example of objectification of women by
men, specifically male athletes who ironically should respect and support their female counterparts ,”
Nicole LaVoi, associate director of the of the Tucker Center, said. “The Harvard men's soccer team is part of a system of sport in which male
privilege, and perhaps rape culture and men's athletics' role in creating and sustaining it, is brought to light. What is shocking is that these
young men are assumed to be the smartest, best, well-behaved men in our most esteemed colleges. If they have acted like this, then what are
all the other men doing?” Part of the problem, the researchers said, is that while colleges and athletes discuss men’s and women’s sports as
though they are part of one family, women are often not treated equally by college athletic departments.
Specifically, O’Shaughnessy writes men’s sports offer 113 full scholarships, and
woman’s sports only 47. The pay gap is happening right now.
Lynn O’Shaughnessy is a nationally recognized college expert, who is a higher-ed journalist, speaker and
educator., “Where the Full-Ride Sports Scholarships Are”, The College Solution, No Date, DA: 11.24.17,
http://www.thecollegesolution.com/where-the-full-ride-sports-scholarships-are/ //ME There are only
six NCAA sports where athletes have a good chance of receiving a full-ride award. They are found within
the Division I schools, which tend to offer the bigger sports programs or which aspire to
have a national reputation. Here are the six sports: Men’s Sports Football (85 scholarships) Basketball
(13 scholarships) Women’s Sports Basketball (15 scholarships) Tennis (8 scholarships) Gymnastics (12
scholarships) Volleyball (12 scholarships)
2)However, female athletes must utilize collective bargaining to fight back against
sexism. The ACLU explains collective rights are necessary to protect individual
rights and help workers challenge gender discrimination.
ACLU, “COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND CIVIL LIBERTIES”, No date, DA:
11/21/17, https://www.aclu.org/other/collective-bargaining-and-civil-liberties
//ME
Collective rights are necessary to protect individual rights. Collective bargaining statutes take into
account the economic reality that individual workers typically lack the economic bargaining power to
stand up meaningfully for their individual rights. Collective bargaining statutes recognize the principle
that collective action is often necessary to protect individual rights. The ACLU has consistently stood up for this
principle. For example, we recently filed a brief in the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, a case involving the use of class
actions to
challenge gender discrimination. We argued that the ability of workers to challenge gender
discrimination in the workplace through class action litigation is critical to realizing the promise of our
nation's civil rights laws because retaliation and economic barriers to litigation often render individual
enforcement efforts impracticable. In both litigation and negotiation, collective action helps to
promote robust enforcement of individual rights.
The BBC furthers in 2016 collective bargaining was essential to woman getting equal
pay in most tennis tournaments.
Tom Fordyce, “'Equal pay is as much a myth as it is a minefield'”, BBC, 03/21/16, DA:
11/21/17, http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/35863208 //ME
It reflects too a historical cultural predisposition to male sport, the way sports broadcasting is frequently marketed at a predominantly male
demographic, how the rest of the mainstream media devotes so much more coverage to men's sport than women's and so influences
demand. If female tennis players are the beneficiaries of the sport's collective bargaining at the biggest
events, as some argue within the men's game, then so are many male players. Djokovic, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are all huge draws.
People fill arenas to watch them. At the big tournaments they will queue overnight to get tickets.
AT deters woman
1)Paying athletes increases female coaches, increasing female participation.
Longman explains in 2017 as colleges coaches are payed more men become
increasingly interested in coaching woman’s team. He quantifies as 50% decrease in
women coaches.
Jeré Longman has been a sports reporter for The New York Times since October 1993, covering a
variety of international sports, primarily those of the Olympics. “Number of Women Coaching in College
Has Plummeted in Title IX Era”, The New York Times, 03/30/17, DA: 11/24/17,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/sports/ncaabasketball/coaches-women-title-ix.html //ME In
1972, when the gender equity law known as Title IX was enacted, women were head coaches of more
than 90 percent of women’s college teams across two dozen sports. Now that number has decreased
to about 40 percent. “I want to think sexism is too simple of an answer, but what is it if it’s not that?” said VanDerveer, the only
woman besides Pat Summitt to have won 1,000 career games in Division I. “ Anytime someone hires a male coach and says,
‘Coaching is coaching,’ well, why aren’t more women in men’s basketball?” The most successful coach in women’s
college basketball is Geno Auriemma of Connecticut, which has won 111 consecutive games and is seeking its fifth consecutive national title —
and 12th over all. In the second semifinal of the N.C.A.A. tournament on Friday, UConn will face Mississippi State, also coached by a man, Vic
Schaefer. Earlier in his career, Auriemma said he felt some antipathy toward his success because he was a man, but no longer. “I would like to
think I’ve done too much for the growth of the game for people to resent the fact that I’m a man,” he said. Several high-profile female coaches
agreed, saying that they respect what Auriemma has achieved and that he hires women as his assistant coaches. “Coaches don’t really
specifically talk about Geno,” Staley said. “They probably more talk about dethroning him.” On Thursday, Auriemma said fewer women wanted
to coach because they had far more career opportunities beyond teaching, and basketball, than they did when Title IX was enacted. “It’s quite
simple,” he said. But that characterization would be vigorously disputed by a number of female coaches.
“Basketball is not a gender,” Staley said. She added: “I do think that women should be given the opportunity to
coach women. I think a lot of times, maybe administrators are going through the process of hiring
somebody with the mind-set of a male. When you go into that mind-set, you don’t give women an
opportunity to be heard.” “Where are the women?” the N.C.A.A. asked in an exhaustive examination of the issue this
winter by Rachel Stark in the organization’s Champion magazine. The answers Stark found were numerous and complicated: As more
money and higher salaries came into college sports, men became increasingly interested in coaching
women’s teams. (In October, Auriemma signed a five-year contract extension that will pay him at least
$13 million). The same opportunity did not run in the other direction. Only about 3 percent of men’s teams are coached by women.
Meanwhile, 80 percent of college athletic directors are men. From conversations with female coaches ,
Stark found other factors leading to their stagnating numbers: “The increasing demands of the job.
Dr. Berri explains in 2016 colleges would most likely cut coaches’ salaries to
pay athletes salaries- increasing the number of woman coaching.
abide by the same rules we see in labor markets in non-sports industries. Specifically, it is illegal—outside of sports—for firms to collude to limit
the compensation of employees. A
free market for labor in college sports would likely limit the ability of teams
That’s key to woman participating, as Longman concludes female coaches are

essential role models vital to development.
Jeré Longman has been a sports reporter for The New York Times since October 1993, covering a
variety of international sports, primarily those of the Olympics. “Number of Women Coaching in College
Has
Plummeted in Title IX Era”, The New York Times, 03/30/17, DA: 11/24/17,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/sports/ncaabasketball/coaches-women-title-ix.html //ME “My
biggest concern is that young women are not often getting the opportunity to have a female coaching
role model,” said Nicole M. LaVoi, the co-director of the Tucker Center. “That’s detrimental to
development.” When McGraw last had an opening for an assistant coach at Notre Dame, she said, the
proportion of male applicants compared with women was about 70 percent to 30 percent. Women
may be more reluctant to switch from one college to another than men, McGraw said.
AT Racial Backlash
1)They need to prove to you that this backlash is so harmful it outweighs any possible
benefits of paying athletes. Lots of beneficial policies, like desegregation or the end of
slavery, have provoked backlash: it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have pursued them.
2)We would contend that paying student athletes is not an issue nearly enough people
have strong enough opinions on to cause some kind of racial divide. There’s a reason
you don’t see marches or political protests about how athletes are legally defined.
3)There are an infinite number of ways to look at paying athletes: a labor rights issue,
an educational policy issue, a poverty alleviation issue. Make them explain to you why
people will automatically default to looking at it through a race lens. Waldron of the
Huffington Post explains in 2017 that there are other reasons why people oppose
paying college athletes. For example, the issue is divided along partisan lines. There is
no reason it will be associated with race.
Travis Waldron, 3-17-2017, "Black Americans Support Paying College Athletes. White People? Not
So Much.," HuffPost, <
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paying-college-athletes-racial-divide-
poll_us_58caca9fe4b0ec9d 29d9c12c >//SM
As Vice Sports explains, a study in Political Research Quarterly found that “harboring negative racial views about blacks was the single strongest
predictor of white opposition to paying athletes.” It was more of a factor than age, education, political affiliation, sports fandom or playing
college sports oneself. “It’s not race and only race,” Tatishe Nteta, a University of Massachusetts Amherst political scientist and one of
the study’s authors, told Vice. “There are a number of reasons why people will support or oppose policy options
here. But race can’t be divorced from the story. Race is one of the central reasons why whites are opposed to pay-for-play.” Indeed, the
HuffPost/YouGov poll found differences of opinion tied to other factors: Men are 18 percentage points more likely to support paying college
athletes than women. Democrats are 17 points more likely to support the idea than Republicans. Adults under 30
are 11 points more likely to favor the notion than people 65 and older. But none of those gaps is as large as the 25 points between white and
black respondents.
4)Even if there is backlash, they don’t contextualize how it will manifest and to what
extent it will actually affect people. Will there be an angry student march or major
legislation? I don’t know, and my opponents probably don’t either. 5)Turn—Derek
Griffith of Vanderbilt explains in 2007 that the root cause of the racist social
problems that take place is institutional racism and finds that the way to solve for
this problem is policy that benefits minorities. Paying athletes does just this.
Derek M. Griffith, Vanderbilt University, 4-3-2007, “Dismantling Institutional Racism: Theory and
Action,” Springer Science,
<https://sph.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/Griffith_Dismantling%20Institutional%20Racism.pdf>//SM
Anti-racist community organizing is an intervention strategy that builds on the core components and principles of community organizing and
infuses anti-racism as a core value and belief. Anti-racism is the advocacy of individual conduct, institutional practices, and cultural expressions
that promote inclusiveness and interdependence and acknowledgement and respect racial differences (Jones, 1997). Anti-racist
approaches to organizing assume that cultural and institutional structures have created an unequal
system, and suggest that the solution is to change the institutions, organizations, and individuals within
these contexts (Shapiro, 2002). The community organizing strategy for creating change is to reduce
inequities in power relations and address the root causes of social problems (Wittig, 1996). Anti-racist organizing
seeks to bring people together who are affected by the problem to increase their collective power so they can resolve the problem, and to hold
those in power accountable to principles of justice and equity (Jones, 2003). Anti-racist organizing efforts bring people together to more
effectively coordinate and work together, making them more powerful actors in their lives rather than passive objects of decisions made by
others (Jones, 2003; Neighborhood Funders Group, 2001). Community organizing consists of four interrelated phases: assessment, research,
action, and reflection (Speer & Hughey, 1995). Assessment is the process of identifying the issues affecting a system, usually conducted
through one-on-one conversations with key members of a community or organization. In addition to gathering information, the conversations
are opportunities to deepen relationships among community members. The
research phase is the opportunity to identify
the potential causes of the issues identified in the assessment phase. Anti-racist organizing approaches
suggest that creating social and institutional change through community organizing must be rooted in a
common, critical analysis of structural and institutional racism, which includes understanding different types,
manifestations, and faces of power (Shapiro, 2002). The research phase also includes gathering information regarding the nature of the issue
and its potential influences and solutions. The key to this phase is uncovering how power and racism are made manifest in this context, while
gaining an understanding of the organizational infrastructure, mission and functions (Griffith et al., 2007). Without understanding both the
metrics of institutional racism and the basic goals and objectives of the organization, the intervention is likely to fail. The action phase is an
effort to exercise power developed through organizing. The action process incorporates strategizing and mobilizing resources for collective
action. It is critical to this process to build multi-racial partnerships of people with a common under- 384 Am J Community Psychol (2007)
39:381–392 123 standing of the problem and who are committed to antiracist community organizing. Mobilizing relational and expert power
and eventually gaining the support of the formal power structure is critical to the systems change process.
Kai Ryssdal of MP News explains in 2013 that black athletes are significantly more
likely to come from lower income households, and that paying them would help them
pay for necessities. He furthers that this would help challenge the wealth gap between
races, helping solve back for the root cause of the backlash they talk about. Kai Ryssdal,
7-8-2013, "NCAA policy hits poor, minority neighborhoods hardest," Market Place,
<https://www.marketplace.org/2013/07/08/wealth-poverty/ncaa-policy-hits-poor-minority-neighborho
ods-hardest >//SM
"Imagine if we lived in a world where Walmart and Target and Kmart could all conspire and say, 'OK, we're all gonna agree to pay our
employees $10 an hour.' That would be entirely unacceptable," points out Watkins. "But that's what happens when Duke and North Carolina
and Kentucky all agree that we're not going to compensate the athletes. It just leads to a system that I would say is inherently unfair." While
many argue that scholarships should be enough for student-athletes, a 2010 study showed that the average NCAA athlete in the big-time
sports, like football and basketball, actually ends up paying around $2,951 per year due to school-related costs. Watkins
also says the
system disproportionately hurts players from lower-income areas, and the African-American community.
"I think that race does play a role in that at least a billion dollars in economic value is stripped from the
black community every year," he argues. He cites the example of Reggie Bush, a former USC football
player who lost his Heisman trophy because his mother received money under the table. "When you look at
USC -- a school with an endowment that's larger than every historically black college in the country combined -- that this school made over $100
million from Reggie Bush's play on the field -- it's hard to argue that some people should be outraged about that," he adds. As
a college
professor, he's encountered many players on campus that have struggled with issues of poverty. As
these college athletes play for their schools and make millions, some hear that they're mother is going to
get evicted, or that a friend in the old neighborhood was shot. The term "scholar-athlete" makes no
sense in a world where students are taken out of class during the week to go play in televised games, he
points
out. Meanwhile, the NCAA defends its practices, arguing that by collecting money from big-ticket
games like the men's basketball finals, they can help fund other lesser-known or lesser-watched sports
like women's volleyball. But Watkins doesn't buy it. "I think that's kind of an interesting argument," Watkins says, "because
when you talk about the coaches, no one ever says, when you pay the basketball coach $5 million, you've only got $100,000 to pay the
volleyball coach. But for some reason when it comes to the athletes, we expect this subsidization model to apply." The results of the court
case likely won't come for months, but will the NCAA ever change its ways? In some ways, the organization does change, says Watkins, by
spending more and more money to defend the system through advertising and marketing. "I think that what's going to probably happen is
that at some point some outside entity -- the IRS, or Congress, or the courts -- are going to step in and break the NCAA down," Watkins
predicts. "The toughest thing about dealing with the NCAA is that they operate in a sovereign space. And when you look throughout society --
any institution that regulates itself is usually going to be filled with corruption."
6)TURN - Dennis Johnson of the Sports Academy finds that even scholarship athletes
have to pay up to 12,000 dollars annually for necessities like transportation not
included in scholarships. With practice schedules making part time jobs impossible,
primarily black, low-income athletes accept illegal payments from coaches and
clubs, furthering stereotypes of African Americans as criminals. Paying student
athletes eliminates the need for these illegal transactions, decreasing racist
stereotypes. http://thesportjournal.org/article/pointcounterpoint-paying-college-athletes/
“Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes” June 2012 by Dennis Johnson of the Sports Academy
As mentioned,
in the 1950’s the NCAA approved adding living stipends to athletic scholarships that
previously included only tuition and fees. Today, the “full ride” scholarship can only include tuition, fees,
room, board, and books. And as mentioned in the previous section, in some cases, depending on the school attended, that scholarship
can be worth anywhere from $30,000 to $200,000, although the figures $20,000 to $100,000 over a four year period might be more accurate.
In any case, that still does not cover the full cost of attending college. The Collegiate Athletes Coalition (CAC)
estimates that NCAA scholarships are worth about $2000 less than the cost of attending a university, as it does not account for expenses such
as travel and sundries. Former Nebraska head football coach and United States Congressman, Tom Osborne (R-NE), calculates the gap
between scholarship funding and the actual cost of attendance to be closer to $3,000. Even former NCAA President, Myles Brand, indicated that
he favored increasing scholarship limits: “Ideally, the value of an athletically related scholarship would be increased to cover the full-cost of
attendance, calculated at between $2,000 to $3000 more per year than is currently provided, I favor this approach of providing the full cost of
attendance” (23, p.232). So yes, the scholarship can be seen as pay for play, or at the very least, a quid pro quo for services rendered during a
four year period. However, even
with a full scholarship, an athlete will have to pay somewhere between $8,000
and $12,000 out of pocket to bridge the cost-of-living gap. Therefore, the full athletic scholarship does
not provide a “free” education. Thus question remains: is the full scholarship a fair and equitable deal for the athlete?
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1187&context=mslj “Payment of
Student-Athletes: Legal & (and) Practical Obstacles” 2000 by Thomas Hurst of Villanova University
Proponents of compensating student-athletes in excess of the allowable scholarship amount argue that student-athletes should be paid
because many of them need the money.' 6 Full
scholarships do not provide student-athletes with any spending
money.17 Thus, it is difficult for many student-athletes, especially those from disadvantaged socio-
economic backgrounds, to go out on dates or even return home for a family emergency. Only in 1996
did the NCAA pass an amendment to the bylaws, allowing student-athletes to obtain part-time
employment during the school year, which permits student-athletes to make up the difference between
the value of an athletic scholarship and the university's "full cost of attendance."18 However, the
tremendous time demands - be it class, exams, practice, games, or work-outs - placed on student-
athletes make part-time jobs during the school year unrealistic, not to mention the potential enforcement nightmares in
controlling overeager boosters who would be providing the jobs in many instances. 19 Furthermore, the recent amendment seems to be at
odds with the purported NCAA priority on education. 20Qualified
student-athletes may receive a Pell grant of up to
$2400, and the NCAA allows student-athletes to receive money from its special assistance fund when a
hardship or an emergency creates unmet needs. Many student-athletes, however, either do not qualify
for such assistance, are unaware it exists, or have needs that outweigh the permissible amounts. 21 Lack
of accessibility of
necessary funds may justify student-athletes' willingness, in the vast majority of cases, to accept
illegal payments from sports agents and university boosters. 22
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1149&context=sportslaw
“African-American Student-Athletes: Marginalizing the NCAA Regulatory Structure?” 1996 by
Timothy Davis of the Marquette Sports Law Review
As a result of the convergence of these social realities and the factors delineated above, African-
American student-athletes delimit the principles on which NCAA rules and regulations are based. In so
doing, they jeopardize their eligibility to participate in intercollegiate competitiona sanction imposed for
violating NCAA amateurism rules.' 32 Moreover, deviations from amateurism rules creates a perception
of morally culpable behavior.' 33 Unfortunately, viewing the African-American student-athlete's
violations of NCAA rules as deviant behavior may provide a convenient basis for attaching certain
stereotypes assigned to African-Americans, particularly young males, in society at large.' Relatedly, "[lt
has to be a dangerous thing for character-building to have these young athletes seduced or drafted into
covert arrangements, which have the aura of criminality."'
AT Federalism
AT federalism
1)There are abuses of federalism in the status quo- there’s no impact. Dr. Levy writes
in 2017 federalism is frequently violated now. Examples include drug legalization,
tort reform, sanctuary cities, etc.
Robert Levy 17, PhD in business from the American University, Chairman of Cato, director of the
Institute for Justice, the Foundation for Government Accountability, March/April 2017, “Volte-
Face: Federalism in the Age of Trump,”
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/marchapril-2017/volte-face-federalism-age-trump In the aftermath
of the Trump election, liberals seem to have rediscovered federalism — although grounded less on principle than
on the conviction that states’ rights might better serve the progressive agenda. Not to be outdone,
Republicans, who now control both legislative and executive branches, appear willing to abandon federalist principles in
favor of strong central government freshly enabled to advance conservative preferences. That role
reversal is reflected in positions on issues such as drug legalization, tort reform, sanctuary cities, and gun
control — reinforced by flawed views of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, spending power, and the Second
Amendment. Let’s start with Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. Marijuana in some
form is now legal in 44 states. But under federal law, the use, possession, sale, cultivation, and transportation ofmarijuana is
illegal. What say our conservative champions of federalism? Republican drug warriors — buttressed by liberal Justice John Paul Stevens’s 2005
opinion in Raich v. Gonzales — have invoked the infinitely elastic Commerce Clause to justify national prohibition.
Indeed,Attorney General Jeff Sessions criticized President Barack Obama for not being tough enough on
marijuana, saying “You have to have leadership from Washington.” And White House press secretary Sean Spicer confirmed on February 23 that the Justice
Department will be doing more to enforce federal marijuana laws.Never mind the warning from conservative Justice Clarence
Thomas, who dissented in Raich despite his antidrug predilections. Thomas wrote that Raich usedmarijuana that had never been
bought or sold, had never crossed state lines, and had no demonstrated effect on the national market.
He added, if Congress can regulate that under the Commerce Clause, then it could regulate virtually
anything — quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers.Or consider tort reform — especially malpractice
cases, in which the litigants are almost always from the same state. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a federal power to set rules that control lawsuits by in-
state plaintiffs against instate doctors for in-state malpractice. Some malpractice awards may be shocking, and the impact may be widespread.
But not every national problem is a federal problem. Nonetheless, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Tom
Price, secretary of health and human services, have pledged to include tort reform in their replacement
for the Affordable Care Act. They say frivolous lawsuits are inflating malpractice insurance premiums,
which raise health care costs. The remedy: nationalize malpractice relief. So much for the federalist notion that the states
should serve as 50 experimental laboratories.Ditto when it comes to the spending power and sanctuary cities. Mayors in
several cities — including Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York — have refused to cooperate with federal immigration
authorities in detaining and deporting illegal aliens. In response, President Trump has promised to cut
federal funding for those cities. That threat ignores two principles of federalism. First, while federal law
supersedes conflicting state law, and states may not impede federal enforcement, neither the president
nor Congress can commandeer state officials to execute federal law. Second, the feds may not deny
funding to states in a manner that essentially compels cooperation. That’s how the Obama administration tried to force states
to expand Medicaid — by withholding all Medicaid funding if a state said no. The Supreme Court reminded the administration that a coercive condition imposed on
receipt of federal funds is incompatible with federalism and thus unconstitutional. Finally,
consider the Second Amendment and the
right to bear arms.On November 8, voters in California, Nevada, and Washington opted for stricter gun
control. Some conservatives demand national gun control standards. But Second Amendment rights are
not absolute. Local jurisdictions retain the ability to regulate the manner of carrying guns, prohibit carrying in sensitive places, bar weapons that are not
covered by the Second Amendment, and disqualify possession by dangerous individuals. And federalism dictates that what’s allowed in
the hills of Montana need not be allowed in downtown Chicago. Recall that the essence of federalism is
dual sovereignty — shared authority between federal and state governments to shield individuals from
concentrations of power. Justice Anthony Kennedy in United States v. Bondput it this way: “By denying any one government
complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the
individual.” That means the proper balance between federal and state power must be rooted in the
Constitution’s embrace of limited government and individual liberty — not liberal or conservative
politics.
2)There is no impact. Dr. Robinson explains in 2015 even if federalism is violated for
one policy, that does not spill over to violate federalism in other ways. i.e.
education federalism does not mean states lose the right to health care laws.
Robinson 2015 - Prof of Law @ U of Richmond School of Law
Kimberly Jenkins, "Disrupting Education Federalism," 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 959
In offering a theory for how education federalism should be restructured to strengthen the federal role over education, and thus reduce
reliance on states to ensure equal access to an excellent education, I build upon Yale Law Professor Heather Gerken's
argument that federalism theory should eschew advancing a single theory for all occasions because
"[b]oth in theory and practice .. . there are many federalisms, not one."39 She astutely contends that scholars developing and
critiquing federalism theory should consider the appropriate balance of institutional arrangements for a specific context. 40 Therefore, my
theory for how education federalism should be restructured does not attempt to propose a federalism
theory for other policymaking arenas such as environmental law or healthcare policy. Instead, itsolely
proposes a shift in the balance of federal, state, and local authority in order to strengthen the federal
role in ensuring equal access to an excellent education while preserving the aspects of state and local autonomy over
education that do not undermine equal access to an excellent education.
turns
Federalism is bad. Dr. McGarry writes in 2002 federalism creates an uneven
patchwork quilt of policy provisions. This becomes an obstacle to economic
development and political stability due to a lack of unity.
McGarry 2 (John, Professor of Political Science – University of Waterloo,
“Federalism (Federation) as a Method of Ethnic Conflict Regulation”,
https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/1a5927f5-9872-4f5e-bc1c-
f1497d5f520b.pdf ) AP
federalism was part of the counterrevolution, thoroughly hostile to the
In the French revolutionary tradition, associated with the Jacobins,
necessity of linguistic homogenisation, a road-block in the path of authentic, indivisible, monistic

popular sovereignty.In his report to the Committee of Public Safety of January 1794 Barère declared that ‘Federalism and superstition speak low Breton; emigration and hatred of the Republic speak
German; the counterrevolution speaks Italian, and fanaticism speaks Basque’ (de Certaus et al. 1975: 295, cited in Brubaker (1992: 7)). Rather than accommodating minorities through self- government, the Jacobins sought
cultural assimilation; they were determined to make peasants into Frenchmen; and therefore they were deeply hostile to all forms of accommodation that inhibited this goal, including federalism. The Jacobin response to diversity
Federalism, with its multiple

was a strong unitary state and a single French people. This tradition survives in contemporary France, where it is central to the myth of the French Republic.
governments, is seen as incompatible with equal citizenship and a single sovereign people. This is not
simply a concern about regional governments creating uneven (‘patchwork quilt’) public policy
provisions. Many French also cannot understand or accept the federal principle whereby citizens who live in regions with small populations are over-represented at the expense of those in more populous regions,
and
they have difficulty with the federal idea of a judicial umpire who can over-rule the people’s elected representatives. Both facts explain the French astonishment at George Bush Jr. being elected U.S. president in 2000 with fewer
votes than his opponent (a result in part of the disproportionality inherent in the Electoral College), and the election being effectively decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. (Ferenczi 2001).10 French republicans think that the
accommodation of minorities and ethnocentrism go together.11 It will lead to regressive government and discrimination against internal minorities, and it will institutionalise and reinforce divisions, endangering national/state
unity. These views are voiced by the left and right. Communists claim that the French government’s proposals to give self-government to Corsica will undermine ‘solidarity between Corsican and French workers, who can only
defend their interests by working together’, and will lead to discriminatory measures against those on the island who are not of Corsican descent.12 The French interior minister, Pierre Chevenement, resigned in reaction to the
proposals, protesting that they would lead to an ‘island ruled by an underworld that spends three-quarters of its energy settling accounts and internal battles’ 13 . While the Corsican proposals do not amount to federation, both
Chevenement and the French president, Jacques Chirac, attack them as leading in that 3 direction: Apparently, Brittany, Alsace, Savoy, as well as French Basques and Catalonians, will follow Corsica’s lead (Ferenczi 2001: 42).14
Ultimately, in the Jacobin view, the alternative to assimilation is state break-up, with the additional risk of ethnic cleansing and Matrioschka-doll secessions as the principle of ethnic nationalism takes hold.15 The Jacobins’ view that
unitarism is needed for unity, if not always their support for civic equality and popular sovereignty, is replicated throughout the world. It was the dominant view in Britain until recently, particularly among Conservaitves. Most
ex-colonies in Africa and Asia, in spite of (or, rather, because of ) the fact that they are ethnically
heterogeneous, have shunned federalism as an obstacle to economic development and political
stability, and prefer unitary structures instead. Leaders in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean distrust
federalism precisely because it provides secessionist opportunities . The kleptocratic Mobutu only
offered federalism as a model for Zaire as his power-base was collapsing. Tunku Abdul Rahman only
offered federation with Singapore because he shared Lee Kuan Yew’s fears of a communist take-over.
Post-colonial state-builders’ antipathy to federalism is now matched amongst the intellectuals and
governing elites of Eastern Europe, who regard it as a recipe for disaster, given the Czechoslovakian,
Yugoslavian and Soviet experiences. Federalism is their ‘f’ word. The recent emergent principle of
international law, stemming from the report of the Badinter Commission on the former Yugoslavia, that
permits the disintegration of federations along the lines of their existing regional units, is in some
people’s eyes likely to strengthen the belief that federation should not be considered a desirable form of
multi-national or multi-ethnic accommodation(Horowitz 1998).16 Several Eastern European states have been
moving in the opposite direction in recent years, replacing multi-national federations with what
Brubaker calls “nationalizing” states, that is, states that are tightly centralized and controlled by, and
in the interests of, their dominant national community. Ironically, the Jacobin argument that
federalism is incompatible with nation-building is shared by ‘hard’ minority nationalists. They concur
that nation and state should be congruent, although they disagree on where the boundaries of the
nation-state should be. This is the position of Quebec’s governing Parti Quebecois, particularly the faction around the ex-Premier Jacques Parizeau, and of Basque Nationalists in Euskal Herritarok. It is
also the view of the Turkish Cypriot leadership under Rauf Denktash, the Chechens, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Minority hard-liners seek independence, although some are prepared to consider confederation.
AT Counter plans
Theory
AT Plan/CP
a) Interpretation. The National Speech and Debate Association write in its 2016-17
Event Rules Manual in PF neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or cp.
National Speech & Debate Association, 2016 - 2017 High School Event Rules Manual, DA: 7/27/17,
https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/High-School-Unified-Manual-2016-2017.pdf
//ME
Plans/Counterplans: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a
formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to
offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer ge
neralized, practical solutions.
b) Violation. They are running a (cp/plan)

c) Prefer our interpretation:
Predictability. The rules say a(cp/plan) is not allowed so we should not
have to prepare for it. A PF topic is only debate is only one month so it
is unfair for us to prepare for every specific (plan/cp).
Ground. They can moot all our offense by reading a cp and small net
benefit which hurts education because the debate lacks depth and topic
discussion.
D) Theory is a voter for fairness and education.
AT get rid of NCAA

AT CP
1)This is a counterplan unless they have the probability analysis that if students
aren’t payed the NCAA will somehow disappear.
2)Perm do both- paying athletes and getting rid of the NCAA aren’t mutually exclusive
colleges can become the enforcement mechanisms for payment.
AT get rid of college sports

AT CP
1)This is a counter-plan unless than can prove some probability analysis that
not paying students will lead to the end of college sports.
2)We outweigh on TF- getting rid of sports will take years since their ingrained in our
society- our impacts are materializing now we need to… (insert impacts) 3)Athletics
are essential. Sternberg of Oklahoma State explains college athletics have many
benefits, such as leadership development, pride, memories, lifetime fitness, stress
relief, well-roundedness, advancement and lifelong friendships.
ROBERT J. STERNBERG is provost and senior vice president, Oklahoma State University.
“COLLEGE ATHLETICS: NECESSARY, NOT JUST NICE TO HAVE” National Association of College and
University Businesses Officers, No Data, DA: 11/24/17,
http://www.nacubo.org/Business_Officer_Magazine/Business_Officer_Plus/Bonus_Material/
College_At hletics_Necessary_Not_Just_Nice_to_Have.html //ME
Consider these positives for supporting college athletics on your campus: 1. Leadership development. College stakeholders have different views of the
ultimate goal of higher education. My opinion is that a college education produces tomorrow's leaders-people who make a positive, meaningful, and enduring
difference to the world. Ideally, college graduates will become the people who will make the world a better place. For me, this ought to be the purpose of college
education in any institution, but it is especially true in a land-grant institution such as Oklahoma State, where the expectation is that the university will give back to
the state and its people. We might then ask, "What leadership characteristics are important for an undergraduate education to develop?" These might include traits
and skills such as strategic and tactical planning, persistence, sensible risk-taking, resilience, self-discipline, time management, a sense of fairness, teamwork, an
understanding of one's adversaries, and sportsmanship (being both a good winner and a good loser). If we now consider which characteristics competitive athletics
help develop, the lists would track pretty well. That is, done right, participation in competitive athletics is leadership development. Then, too, coaches, if properly
trained, can be tremendous leadership mentors. Carmen Cozza, the head football coach at Yale for more than 30 years, was a role model to generations of college
students. Our athletic director and former golf coach at Oklahoma State, Mike Holder, sets a similar example for a contemporary generation of students at OSU.
Students can learn as many lessons about leadership and life from a great coach as they can from any great professor. Obviously, such development can be done
badly, as when a team adopts an attitude, say, of winning at any cost. But all aspects of college education run the risk of being done badly. Professors, for example,
may require students to memorize content without first ascertaining whether everyone understands the material they are memorizing. On the other hand, students
can allow themselves to become so distracted with technology gadgets and tools that homework and learning are neglected. Many employers I have talked with
have said they prefer to hire college graduates who have participated in competitive sports. Hiring organizations recognize, even if implicitly, that college athletes
have developed leadership skills in which other students did not have or take the opportunity to engage. Of course, participation in competitive athletics is not the
only way to develop leadership skills. For example, I teach an undergraduate course on the psychology of leadership; among my goals for the course is the
development of leadership skills. Nonetheless, competitive athletics can complement other aspects of college life in developing valuable skills as well as attitudes of
leadership. 2. Spirit. During more than four decades in university teaching, I have been on campuses that are alive with enthusiasm and vibrancy and on others
that have appeared to be spiritually dead. School spirit can come from many sources, but college athletics is near the top of the list. I never imagined the excitement
and enthusiasm that college teams could generate until I arrived at Oklahoma State. Come game day, thousands of people dress up in orange and crowd into the
athletic stadium to cheer their team on. The spirit carries over to nongame days as well. Some might feel that such an attitude is hardly becoming of an institution
dedicated to developing the life of the mind; but I would take the excitement and passion of the schools with spirit any day. It makes life on the campus much more
fun and boosts morale and a feeling of identification with the institution. It also provides a sense of positive competitive spirit that can unify diverse stakeholders
who otherwise may have rather different or conflicting agendas. 3. Pride and loyalty. When I first came to Oklahoma State, merely to give a university
colloquium, I quickly observed the enormous pride and loyalty of its stakeholders toward the institution. In my previous institutions, I'd never encountered anything
quite like it. While other activities can inspire institutional connection, the pride in the OSU teams that I encountered truly touched me, even as a visitor on a short
speaking engagement. It is just nicer and more energizing to work or study in an institution where people feel a connection that competitive athletics can instill. 4.
Memories. Students typically spend only four to six years in undergraduate study, a period that quickly becomes a distant memory. For many alumni,
competitive athletics provide some of the most salient memories. The recollections are not always pleasant; my most indelible memory from my undergraduate
years at Yale is the football disaster, "Harvard Beats Yale 29-29," in which the two ivy-league schools tied for the Ivy crown, although the Harvard Crimson claimed
otherwise in its headline. Nevertheless, such events become a part of the joy we have in recalling our college days. Even as an administrator, I'm sure that long after
my retirement I'll remember the excitement of the OSU 2010 football season in which Oklahoma State finished 11-2. 5. Lifetime fitness. Research over the
past decade increasingly shows the amazing correlation between lifetime fitness and better adult health and longevity. Mental decline, not just physical
deterioration, has been tied to lack of physical exercise and healthy nutrition. Many of the habits we acquire in college become the behaviors we maintain over a
lifetime. Physical fitness should be one of them. Even for those who argue that a college education should develop primarily the life of the mind, athletics is
important because of the ties between mental awareness and physical health. Thus, involvement even of college faculty and staff in making use of athletic facilities
is important. 6. Recruitment. In general, applications climb when teams have winning seasons. For example, even after the Butler University basketball team
fans saw the team so narrowly miss the national championship in its loss to Duke University, Butler saw its popularity skyrocket. Some faculty members might ask
whether the school really wants those extra applicants, but it is almost always better to be able to select from a larger applicant pool. And the reason applications
increase is not only that students want to attend a school with great teams. It also relates to what psychologists call the "availability heuristic." That is, winning
championships, or even coming close, gives colleges a regional or even national visibility they would not otherwise have. In that way, the colleges become
"available" in applicants' minds. It's true that most students will not play intramural sports, but many will engage in intramural athletics. Students who do play want
good facilities. They want regulation-size fields, courts, and swimming pools. They want attractive locker rooms and up-to-date exercise facilities. Providing such
facilities also helps recruit students to the institution. 7. Stress relief and prosocial behavior. College students are experiencing a time of their
lives when they need to blow off steam. They have what seems at times to be boundless energy, and they need to channel it somewhere. They also require outlets
to help them relieve stress. Athletics and physical-fitness activities in general can provide effective ways to channel energy and relieve anxiety. And such activities
are certainly better alternatives than drug and alcohol use. 8.Well-roundedness and balance. Obviously, students go to college to study and learn.
Much of that knowledge is gained in experiences outside the classroom. Some would argue that most of what they learn is extracurricular—a tacit knowledge of
how to accomplish a life well lived. Although studying hard is important, it is not all there is to the higher education experience. One of the critical things we learn is
that there is always something that drives us: achieving the best grades to qualify for a top-notch graduate or professional program; leveraging graduate work to
land a great job; achieving and accepting one promotion after another; and ultimately continuing to climb the professional ladder. But by focusing only on these
work-related activities, we may reach a point where we feel that life is passing us by. To help avoid such disappointment, we need to learn that life is constantly a
balancing act and that people who find a balance tend to be happier and more fulfilled. The college experience—and participation in athletics—can help provide
such balance and fulfillment. 9. Town-gown relationships. The interests of a town sometimes, but not always, coincide with those of a college or
university. On the one hand, a university is a source of jobs and usually provides education and entertainment venues for local citizens. On the other hand, some
townspeople may resent the fact that college properties are typically untaxed; and they may encounter unacceptable behavior of college students in their
community. College athletics, like college cultural events, can go a long way toward helping town-gown relations, if they are handled in a way that respects the
interests of the surrounding community. By encouraging attendance at games and support of the college teams, the campus can draw in residents who might
otherwise develop a somewhat antagonistic attitude toward the college or university. Athletic games create revenue for the town and, in cases such as varsity
football, this is a substantial benefit. 10.Alumni loyalty and involvement. Every college and university wants to build a loyal and involved alumni
base that can serve the institution in many ways. One of the most effective routes is to provide opportunities for alumni to serve as advocates and ambassadors,
helping create a positive reputation. College athletics tend to keep alumni tied to and involved in the college. An important byproduct of these connections is the
ability of alumni to hire graduates and otherwise assist them as they navigate through their careers. 11 . Advancement. Perhaps the most controversial
benefit of college athletics is in the area of advancement. Those of us who are active in fundraising learn quickly that alumni give for their own reasons, not those of
the fundraisers. And we all know that winning teams translate into more dollars for many colleges. While not every team will be a winning team every year, many
alumni appreciate it when a team gives its best, regardless of whether it wins or loses. While some faculty might worry that all the advancement benefits of college
athletics will go back to athletics, this simply is not true. Obviously, some of the funds support athletics, but contributions go to many other uses. In fact, college
athletics can help in all areas of advancements by building loyalty, connection, and lifelong relationships. 12. Branding. The quality of an institution's brand
helps determine the kind of students and faculty a college can attract; the resources that can accrue to it; and the general reputation it experiences in the
community, state, country—and even the world. For better or worse, college athletics typically forms part of that brand. It will obviously be a more important part
of the brand in some institutions than in others. But to those for whom it makes a difference, athletics can matter to the positive reputation of the school, and to
the related licensing fees the brand can attract. 13. Lifelong friendships. Perhaps there is no other time in a person's life when he or she can make
friendships in quite the way that is possible in the college years. Friendships often form best when people participate together in activities that are engaging and
fun, and athletics can and should be fun for the players and fans involved. Whether we are fans or athletes, the friendships we make at the athletic field are often
the ones that make a difference and the ones we call upon during critical points in our lives.
Edu DA
Getting rid of college sports means students cannot get a college decree, perpetuating
a cycle of poverty.
Dr. Deamon explains in 08’ 90% of athletes could not have attended college
without the athletic scholarships they received
Fall 2008, DA: 11/15/17, file:///C:/Users/Madel/Downloads/25608704.pdf //ME Sports have opened
doors both educationally and economically for African Americans. African American student-athletes graduate at a
higher rate than non-athlete African American students ("African-American College Athletes," 2002). Although White athletes also graduate at
higher rates than White non-athletes, the financial benefit of athletic scholarships seem to be more advantageous for African Americans
("African-American College Athletes," 2002). In
fact, 90% (18 of 20) of the participants in this study revealed that
they would not have had the opportunity to attend college without the athletic scholarships they
received. Many of the respondents had collegiate experiences that they did not consider to be positive because only (20%) reported having
an overall good experience on campus. Although most respondents received a degree, none felt that their educational development was
emphasized by the universities they attended or that they fully reaped the benefits of receiving a higher education.
Burnsed explains in 2011 any degree vastly increases salary with nearly a 750,000
increase in lift time earnings.
Brian Burnsed Staff Writer, “How Higher Education Affects Lifetime Salary”, U.S. News, 08/05/11,
DA: 11/21/17,
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/08/05/how-higher-education-affects-
lif etime-salary //ME
Those holding bachelor's degrees earn about $2.27 million over their lifetime , while those with master's, doctoral,
and professional degrees earn $2.67 million, $3.25 million, and $3.65 million, respectively. That said, the major and industry a student selects
ultimately have an enormous impact on lifetime earnings. Those with bachelor's degrees who work either in management or science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) earn more, on average, than people with advanced degrees of any level who work in fields
like education, sales, and community service. Those
with bachelor's degrees, no matter the field, earn vastly more
than counterparts with some college ($1.55 million in lifetime earnings) or a high school diploma ($1.30
million lifetime), indicating that no matter the level of attainment or the field of study, simply earning a
four-year degree is often integral to financial success later in life. "The payoff from getting a college degree is huge and
is
actually increasing," says Jamie Merisotis, president and CEO of Lumina Foundation, a nonprofit focused on boosting America's number
of college graduates. "For
people wondering [if] a college degree [is] worth it: Not only is it worth it, but
the premium is growing."
Dr. Trostel quantifies a 134% increase in annual earnings.

Philip Trostel- Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center & School of Economics University of Maine, “IT’S
NOT JUST THE MONEY THE BENEFITS OF COLLEGE EDUCATION TO INDIVIDUALS AND TO SOCIETY”,
Lumina Issue Papers, 2014, DA: 11/21/17,
https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-just-the-money.pdf //ME On average in 2012,
Americans with bachelor’s degrees (and without graduate degrees) receive the following benefits in comparison to high school graduates never
attending college: • Annual earnings are about $32,000 (134 percent) higher. Moreover, there is no evidence that the
college earnings premium is declining. Indeed, it has been increasing. • Lifetime
earnings are, conservatively, about
$625,000 (114 percent) greater in present discounted value (using a 3 percent real interest rate and taking forgone
earnings while in college into account). • The incidence of poverty is 3.5 times lower. • The likelihood of having health insurance
through employment is 47 percent higher. Annual additional compensation in the form of employer contributions for health insurance is $1,400
(74 percent greater). • The likelihood of having a retirement plan through employment is 72 percent greater. Retirement income is 2.4 times
higher. • Job safety is greater. The incidence of receiving workers’ compensation is 2.4 times lower. • Measures of occupational prestige are
significantly higher. • The
probability of being employed is 24 percent higher. • The likelihood of being
unemployed is 2.2 times lower. • The likelihood of being out of the labor force (neither employed nor unemployed) is 74 percent
less. • Age at retirement is higher. The probability of being retired between the ages 62 through 69 is about 25 percent lower. • The
likelihood of reporting health to be very good or excellent is 44 percent greater. • The likelihood of being a
regular smoker is 3.9 times lower. The incidence of obesity and heavy drinking are significantly lower. The likelihood of exercising, having a
healthy diet, wearing seat belts and seeking preventative medical care are significantly higher. • The incidence of a disability making it difficult
to live independently is 3.6 times lower. • Life
expectancy at age 25 is seven years longer (for those having at least
some college compared to those never having gone to college). • Asset income is 4.9 times greater ($1,900 more per
year). • The likelihood of not having a bank account is 8.1 times lower. Reliance on expensive forms of banking and credit is significantly lower. •
The probability of being in prison or jail is 4.9 times lower. • The probability of being married is 21 percent higher and the
probability of being divorced or separated is 61 percent lower. • The likelihood of being happy is significantly higher. The
total value of a college education is thus considerably greater than just the higher earnings .
AT chance NCAA rules

AT CP
1)This is a counterplan unless they have the probability analysis that if students
aren’t payed the NCAA will magically change its rules.
2)Perm do both- paying athletes and reforming the NCAA aren’t mutually exclusive
we can do both.
3)TURN: Collective bargaining checks spurts reform. Dr. McCormick explains in 2006
employee athletes would be entitled to forming themselves into unions to bargain
collectively with their employers and their right to strike would be protected. This
is critical because athletes can bargain for new reform and check the institutions in
charge of them.
Robert A. McCormick, Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law, B.A., Michigan
State University, 1969, J.D., University of Michigan, 1973. Amy Christian McCormick, Professor of
Law,
Michigan State University College of Law, B.S.B.A., Georgetown University, 1988, J.D., Harvard Law
School, 1991. “The Myth of the Student-Athlete: The College Athlete as Employee”, The Washington
Law Review, 01/01/06, DA: 11/20/17,
currently taking.39
Topicality
Definitions
NCAA
NCAA
“WHAT IS THE NCAA?”, NCAA, DA: 11/13/17,
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/ncaa-101/what-ncaa //ME The National
Collegiate Athletic Association is a member-led organization dedicated to the well-being and lifelong
success of college athletes.
NCAA Student athletes

Student Athlete
Taylor Branch is the author of, among other works, America in the King Years, a three-volume history of
the civil-rights movement, for which he won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle
Award. “The Shame of College Sports”, The Atlantic, October 2011, DA: 11/13/17,
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/ //ME
The term student-athlete was deliberately ambiguous. College players were not students at play (which
might understate their athletic obligations), nor were they just athletes in college (which might imply they were
professionals). That they were high-performance athletes meant they could be forgiven for not meeting
the academic standards of their peers; that they were students meant they did not have to be
compensated, ever, for anything more than the cost of their studies. Student-athlete became the
NCAA’s signature term, repeated constantly in and out of courtrooms.
Ought
Ought, is defined as an obligation
Merriam Webster “ought” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought
used to express obligation <ought to pay our debts>, advisability <ought to take care of yourself>,
natural expectation <ought to be here by now>, or logical consequence <the result ought to be infinity>
Employees
Employee
“employee”, Dictionary.com, No Date, DA: 11/15/17,
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/employees //ME
a person working for another person or a business firm for pay.
National Labor Relations Board defines employee in the context of the resolution
Professor Marc Edelman (Marc@MarcEdelman.com) is a tenured Professor of Law at the Zicklin School
of Business, Baruch College, City University of New York. He is also an adjunct professor at Fordham
University School of Law and a columnist for Forbes SportsMoney. Professor Edelman advises numerous
businesses on legal issues related to antitrust, gaming, intellectual property, collective bargaining, and
sports law. He thanks Baruch College graduate student Caroline Porter for her research assistance. “THE
FUTURE OF COLLEGE ATHLETE PLAYERS UNIONS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM NORTHWESTERN
UNIVERSITY AND POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS IN THE COLLEGE ATHLETES’ RIGHTS MOVEMENT”, Cardozo
Law Review, 2017, DA: 11/15/17,
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=7621271251131251271050940240830730921210710090
350590501170121050000781261090310921260501010980440420400420670971150710780900911040
38000
060086099103108071126119081005023050081021019124007122014007002105001088003003108107
097124107127095104093065107120105&EXT=pdf //ME
Upon review of the respective parties’ briefs, the Northwestern University football players prevailed, as Region 13 ruled that the
Northwestern University football players indeed constituted employees under section 2(3) of the
NLRA.54 The Region 13 decision defined the term “employee” to include any person “who performs
services for another under a contract of hire, subject to the other’s control or right of control, and in
return for payment.”55 Applying this definition,the decision concluded that the Northwestern University
football players performed services for their school under a “tender,” which is an employment contract
that guarantees the football players compensation in the form of both a free education and living
stipends.56 The decision also found that Northwestern University benefited from this “tender” because the
college generated approximately $235 million in revenue from the services of its football players during
the nine year period from 2003 to 2012.57 With respect to the issue of “control,” the Region 13 decision similarly found that the
Northwestern University football players met their burden.58 The decision explained that during the six weeks of football training camp before
the start of each academic year, coaches provided the Northwestern University football players with an hour-by
hour itinerary of their activities “from as early as 5:45 a.m. until 10:30 p.m.”59 Meanwhile, during the season,the
Northwestern University football players “devote[d] 40 to 50 hours per week on football related
activities” including “25 hours [each week] over a two day period traveling to and from the[ir] game,
attending practices and meetings, and competing in the game [itself].”60 Beyond these heavy time commitments,
the Region 13 decision found that Northwestern University exercised control in more specific ways.61 For example, Northwestern
University coaches determined the football players’ attire when traveling to road games , and what cars
the players would drive while on campus.62 Northwestern University coaches also determined whether the
football players could seek outside employment, if the players were allowed to speak with the media,
and what content the players could post on the Internet.63 Finally, the decision even recognized that Northwestern
University exercised control over its grant-in-aid football players by requiring them to miss classes and
select course schedules built around the obligations placed upon them in their role as football players .64
This particular finding entirely differentiates the Northwestern University football players from students in the general Northwestern
University student body.65 To some, it even more broadly substantiates their reasons for seeking to unionize.66
Fair Labor Standards Act

FLSA
United States Department of Labor, “Wage and Hour Division (WHD)”, No date, DA:
11/15/17, https://www.dol.gov/whd/flsa/ //ME
The FLSA establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and youth employment
standards affecting employees in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments.
Covered nonexempt workers are entitled to a minimum wage of not less than $7.25 per hour
effective July 24, 2009. Overtime pay at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate
of pay is required after 40 hours of work in a workweek.
Standards
Dictionary definitions 1st
Dictionary definitions are the best definitions
They are key to discerning what’s core of the topic. Dictionary
definitions are static they rarely change, other definitions can change
in the middle of the topic. Standardized definitions are something all
debaters can access; while organizations promote definitions to
advance their agendas.
They are the most real-world application of the topic because their
historically accurate- while experts often write definitions not
consistent with how the U.S. would implement them.

A2 NEG March 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A2 NEG March 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A2 NEG March 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weighing

According to the most reliable source,

Even this 1% is not enough

Justin Song, xx-xx-xx[18], "Average Cost of College in America," ValuePenguin, https://www.valuepenguin.com/student-

AT athletes pay taxes

AT Less athlete financial aid

That creates a better school, with more successful students, more

AT athletes higher grad rates

2)Paying athletes incentivizes competition. Strachan explains in 2015 professional

AT cuts non-revenue sports

AT less sports support

1)Collective bargaining checks corrupt practices. Dr. McCormick explains in 2006

That’s key to woman participating, as Longman concludes female coaches are

necessity of linguistic homogenisation, a road-block in the path of authentic, indivisible, monistic

Federalism, with its multiple

b) Violation. They are running a (cp/plan)

AT get rid of NCAA

AT get rid of college sports

Dr. Trostel quantifies a 134% increase in annual earnings.

AT chance NCAA rules

NCAA Student athletes

Fair Labor Standards Act

You might also like