" Should College Athletes Be Paid? " by Veronica Majerol- Non- Fiction Critical Analysis

"Should College Athletes be paid?" is a non-fiction article, found in upfront, about the debate on whether college athletes should due paid for participating in big-time college football or basketball programs. The article presents to us different sides of the opinions, with yes meaning they should be paid, and no stating that it would ruin the fun! The author seems to lean more toward the debate that they SHOULD be payed due to their ability and age. One way in which they do this is, the author presents to us a college football player's life outside of the field, showing how not getting payed has a negative effect on the players themselves. "There are nights that I go to bed and I'm starving." This fact is life-threatening and I bet that no one would have expected to hear that. Another way in which the author tries to get her point across is by predicting the outcome of college players' lives if they were to get paid, she looks into the future and presents to us ideal situations of how the players' lives would change in a good way. Lastly, she presents her argument by her use of language, which implies that it is unfair how college players are treated as mega stars but don't get the power and acknowledgement as people with the same job, yet just 10 years older. She presents it to us in a way where she says that they aren't being given the acknowledgement they deserve in their industry, which furthermore adds on to her bias, that college football and basketball players should be paid.

The author hopes to persuade kids that college players' should be paid because they are being treated unfairly, just due to their age. She wants us to feel the pain that some people have to go through in this industry, because they aren't being paid for what they do on a daily basis. One way in which the author persuades us is by using a big company to make her point. " At the same time, the NCAA and its member universities benefit enormously from popular athletes, who brings in millions of dollars in TV revenues and memorabilia sales, increase alumni donations and attract new students." This is a 'power' company in the industry, who seem to benefit from the paying so it seems to prove the author's thoughts as they both have the same viewpoint. Also, the author uses her own bias by using very strong language to persuade readers that college players should be getting paid. " The NCAA gets a cut; universities get a cut; coaches get a cut. The only ones not cashing in, it seems, are the players themselves." The author uses very persuasive language, for example; she could have said not being paid but instead she says 'not cashing in.' It is just more persuasive and it makes us feel like we are siding with her.

The article made me think about the lives of these college athletes, and that they aren't all wonderful. I agree that the players should get paid, as they aren't being treated fairly for the work that they do, however I think that most of the money that they get given should be put in trust funds, so that they aren't influenced by what big time players spend their money on. My thoughts have changed because I had never thought about the negative effects that college players have to go through, and quite frankly I had no idea that they didn't get payed.