I can only see the 1st question right now. After i complete the first one then only i will be able to see the 2nd question and after finishing that i will be able to view the 3rd. I need almost a page long argument. So please finish the first one as soon as you can so i can send you the 2,3, and 4th question. I only have 2 hours to finish it.
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now
Case 4.6: Paying College Athletes
Using the argument formula, argue for/against paying football athletes at Division 1 colleges
Formula must be followed precisely
Premises must be true in order to support your conclusion
Moral theory must be applied correctly and support your argument logically (Utilitarianism, Kant, Ross (prima facie), and Rawls)
CAM NEwTON IS THE STAR QUARTERBACK of the Carolina Panthers. In his last year at Auburn University, he won the Heisman trophy, led his team to a national championship, and was the highest NFL draft pick. Although that degree of success couldn’t have been predicted when Newton graduated from high school, that he had enormous talent and potential was obvious to college coaches around the country. Allegedly, his father offered to have Newton sign with Mississippi State University for a $180,000 under-the-table payment, a charge he denies. But what would be wrong with a system, some people are now asking, which permitted universities to bid for the ser- vices of players like Newton and to do so above board?82
College football is big business. With the introduction of a playoff system for the national championship, the television and other revenues that go to college football programs and to the NCAA promise to double or even triple. Right now that money subsidizes the escalating salaries of coaches and athletic directors, who at the top football schools often make millions of dollars a year, as well as underwriting the construction of new and better football facilities. None of it goes to the players who make the system possible. That strikes some people as unfair. After all, for players at Division 1 schools, football is a full-time, year-round job. Shouldn’t they be compensated for doing it? Why should coaches get big salaries and players nothing?
Flush with money from television rights and maybe feeling a little guilty about sharing none of it with college athletes, the five largest football conferences—the SEC, ACC, Pac-12, Big 12, Big Ten—agree. They are pushing the NCAA to allow colleges to pay players a modest stipend, perhaps a few thousand dollars a year, and to permit college athletes to sign advertising endorsements. Various salary cap plans are also being tossed around that would limit the total amount that any college can spend on players. Critics of these ideas argue that players are already compen- sated. They receive tuition, room and board, and an education as well as a package of professional coaching and strength and fitness training that would, if purchased on the open market, be very expensive. In addition, they get exposure to scouts from the NFL. Critics also point to the fact that the vast majority of football programs—maybe nine out of ten—make no money. Some of them would be hard pressed to pay their players much money.
On the other hand, there are those who think that set sti- pends and salary caps are, at best, a halfway measure. They want a completely free market, in which colleges would bid for the services of high school recruits and those recruits would be free to negotiate contracts with the universities who want them. On this scenario, in the future a football powerhouse might pay $180,000 for a player with Cam Newton’s potential. But then player salaries might not go that high if it turns out that very few universities could afford to offer anywhere near that much. Still, the biggest and richest athletic departments would almost certainly buy up the best college athletes, disrupting any sem- blance of competitive balance. Free-market advocates see no problem with this. They contend, in response, that the wealthiest programs—those with the big-name coaches, top-of-the-line athletic facilities, and super-duper dormitories for athletes— already get the lion’s share of the top college players.
Still, this free-market, capitalistic approach runs up against the older ideal of college athletes as student amateurs. The National Labor Relations Board, however, has decisively rejected that ideal as a kind of myth. In March 2014, it ruled that football players on scholarship at Northwestern University have a right to form a union and bargain collectively over such things as how much time they devote to football, the control exerted by coaches, and the scholarships they receive, which the Board deemed a contract for compensation. The NLRB notes that Northwestern recruited players for their athletic skill, not their academic ability, and that it reported $235 million in revenue from football between 2003 and 2012. It also noted that players spend “many more hours” on football than on their studies—50 to 60 hours per week during a one-month training camp and 40 to 50 hours per week during the football season. The NLRB ruling sets a precedent that would clearly extend to other private universities. (State law regulates collective bargaining at public universities.)
For its part, the NCAA rejects the notion that student-athletes are employees. After all, if college football players are no longer amateurs, then why insist that they be students and go to classes? Players would still represent the college they worked for on the football field, but they would be university employees,
not students. That would make college football, in the most competitive conferences, a minor league of the NFL, but it would at least have the advantage of ending the recurrent scandals associated with efforts to keep athletes academic eligible.
Argument formula that must be followed:
Argument: This sentence states what you are arguing. (E.g. X is morally wrong)
Premise 1: One reason for my argument is. . . . .
Premise 2: Another reason for my argument is. . . . .
The moral theory which best supports my argument is: (choose from Utilitarian, Kantian, Ross, Rawls)
and explain HOW the theory supports your argument.
Opposing view: consider an argument that disagrees with yours. Explain it.
Refute Opposing view: then, say why the opposing view does not work and why your argument is logical