Prestigious lawyer and two term Harvard University president, Derek Bok, once said “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.” (Johnson&Acquaviva,
2014.). This saying is as true, now, as it has ever been. In fact, according to the U.S census bureau (Johnson & Acquaviva , 2012), the average person who has attained higher education will make approximately a million dollars more within their lifetime than someone who chose the career route following high school. Although college seems to be the obvious path, many youth do not pursue college in attempt to avoid the debt tagged to a diploma. Many students’ only hope of higher education is by obtaining a scholarship. A scholarship often consists of education in exchange for excellent performance in a specific activity. This arrangement sounds fair on the surface; however, there are many loopholes and students may be getting themselves into a deeper commitment than expected. Athletes agree to play in exchange for education, but they end up putting in more than just time on the field. College athletes should not only be compensated academically, but financially as well.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, has been fighting the battle against “pay for play” for many years. Thus far, players’ complaints have been shut down by the term: “student athlete”. This term, crafted by ex NCAA director Walter Byers (Byers&Hammer,2012.), makes the claim that college athletes should not be paid because they are not employees. They are simply students enjoying an extra-curricular activity. The NCAA adds that they are concerned paying students would take away from the primary goal of education. (Johnson&Acquavia,2012.). Although I do agree education should be the main focus, ...
... middle of paper ...
...m http://www.thesportjournal.org/general.asp. Retreived from: Gale Cengage Learning.
“Indenentured Servent.”Meriam-Webster.com.2014
.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
Koba , M. (2013, December 21). The lawsuit that could reshape college sports. CNBC news . Retrieved from http://www.cnbc.com/id/101285999/page/1
Ramogi, H. (2013, April 1). A fair da'ys pay for a fair da'ys work. . U.S news and world report .http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-ncaa-athletes-be-paid/a-fair-days -pay-for-a-f air-days-work
Rockwell, S. (Producer), & Finkel, R. (Producer) (2013). In Schooled:The price of college sports.
Should NCAA athletes be paid?. (2014). U.S news and world report . Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-ncaa-athletes-be-paid
Solomon, J. (2012, February 19). College athletes' rights: Ncaa requires health insurance
In college sports athletes perform on the big stage in front of thousands of people every week and receive no money for their performances. These athletes receive no money for their performance because it is made illegal by the NCAA for any student athlete to receive any type of reward for their performance. In the last five years there has been a heated debate on whether the NCCA should start paying college athletes. People responded to this situation with mixed views and opinions. The first reason that people have shown views against pay for play is because scholarships pay for college athlete’s school either fully or partially. Secondly people believe pay for play would create jealousy and hypocrisy on college campuses between administration, college students, and other civic workers. The first reason that people have been convinced about pay for play is overpaid college coaches who make millions for the little work they do. Next the NCCA, Colleges, and merchandisers profit millions off the athletes every week without any of that revenue given back to the athletes. Next people believe scholarships are ineffective or incomplete. Lastly people believe the corrupt system of the NCAA is a reason college athletes should be paid. The NCCA has proposed plans to enact a pay for play plan including adding a two thousand dollar stipend for student athletes but this has been on hold for now. In society for student athletes to succeed in college and college careers the NCCA must pay them.
Some feel that by not paying college athletes that college institutions are thereby exploiting their athletes free of charge, which is unfair. However, this article feels that college athletes are paid very favorably by the large amount of money they receive for schooling through scholarships. Also, since college athletes don’t pay to play or go to school they are receiving a free college degree whether or not they decide to stay in school for four years or not. With the training that they receive from professional trainers and nutritionists for a professional controlled diet they save possibly thousands within the 4 years they attend school and perform in collegiate athletics.
The article, “The shame of the NCAA” by Dave Zirin and the essay written by Tim Ajmani, “Compensation for college students?”, have many similarities. Dave Zirin states, “The coaches own the athletes’ feet, the colleges own the athletes’ bodies, and the supervisors retain the large reward (Zirin 205)”, and in the piece written by Tim Ajmani, “they reap the benefits of the athletes competing in their sports(Ajmani 209)”. They both get at the same point but in different ways, student athletes are being owned by these colleges and the NCAA is getting paid for the hard work and skills that are shown on the court. Both writers suggested that students should get paid so they could finish school and not be a one and done.
The argument about whether college is worth it or not has been one of the biggest arguments throughout the media for decades. Students suffer a lot from the debts that they get from college and also the amount of studying that they do in college and when they graduate they ask themselves “is graduation from college really worth all the money that we paid and all the work that we have done?”. Leonhardt and Matthews are two journalists who talk about whether college is really worth it or not, and they both have different perspectives. David Leonhardt thinks that college is absolutely worth all the money you pay and the work you do, stating that “Americans with fouryear college degrees made 98 percent more an hour on average in 2013 than people without a degree.
This points out that if student athletes were given a salary, the only athletes that would receive it are those in basketball and football. The less popular sports athletes would either switch to these two sports, or continue playing the sport they love while their colleagues thrive in the sport they love while getting an incentive. Universities and colleges pride themselves as environments where students seek further education in a particular field of study.
Ever since college students started playing sports, back in 1879 when Harvard played Yale in the first collegiate sports game, the question of whether college athletes should be paid was addressed. From that point on athletes, coaches, and college administrators have brought forward points agreeing or disagreeing with the notion of paying college students. The students argue that they deserve to be paid due to the revenue that they bring for the college and because of the games they play and the championships they win. At first the idea of paying college athletes was out of the question, but now the argument has gone from a simple yes or no to a heated debate. Since college athletes are given a free education, they should not also be paid.
Today there are over 450,000 college athletes and the National College Athletics Association (NCAA) faces a difficult decision on whether or not college athletes should be paid. Many people believe that they should and many believe they should not. There are several benefits that college’s athletes receive for being a student athlete. Why should they receive even more benefits than their scholarship and numerous perks?
One of the strongest arguments against student athletes getting paid is that many people feel they already are getting paid, through their financial aid package. Sports Illustrated author, Seth Davis, states in his article “Hoop Thoughts”, that “student athletes are already being payed by earning a free tuition. Which over the course of four years can exceed $200,000, depending on the school they attend. They are also provided with housing, textbooks, food and academic tutoring. When they travel to road games, they are given per diems for meals. They also get coaching, training, game experience and media exposure in their respective crafts” (Davis, 2011). This is a considerable amount of income. While the majority of regular students are walking out of school with a sizeable amount of debt, most student athletes are debt free. Plus they get to enjoy other benefits that are not made available to the average student. They get to travel with their teams, t...
College sports have grown over the years, earning billions of revenue every year. However, what may seem surprising is that the athletes involved do not get a single penny earned from the revenue. These college sports require tremendous time and determination due to long hard practices along with rigorous course works. And due to the lack of time, athletes don’t often have the time for part time jobs that allow them to earn money to buy things they need or want for their personal life. Therefore, college athletes have every right to be paid for their hard work.
The biggest question or dispute regarding the cost of higher education is finding the appropriate monetary and economical equation to determine the percentage of personal and public responsibility. The above debate has been in question since the 1800’s when Thomas Jefferson stated; "I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness ”. Those important words that called attention to the importance of having an educated citizenry in order to preserve democracy are until this day, words by which legislator...
The proposal of payment toNCAA student-athletes has begun major conversations and arguments nationwide with people expressing their take on it. “This tension has been going on for years. It has gotten greater now because the magnitude of dollars has gotten really large” (NCAA). I am a student athlete at Nicholls State University and at first thought, I thought it would be a good idea to be able to be paid as a student-athlete.After much research however; I have come to many conclusions why the payment of athletes should not take place at the collegiate level.The payment of athletes is only for athletes at the professional level. They are experts at what they do whether it is Major League Baseball, Pro Basketball, Professional Football, or any other professional sport and they work for that franchise or company as an employee. The payment of NCAA college athletes will deteriorate the value of school to athletes, create contract disputes at both the college and professional level, kill recruiting of athletes, cause chaos over the payment of one sport versus another, and it will alter the principles set by the NCAA’s founder Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. Under Roosevelt and NCAA, athletes were put under the term of a “student-athlete” as an amateur. All student athletes who sign the NCAA papers to play college athletics agree to compete as an amateur athlete. The definition of an amateur is a person who “engages in a sport, study, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons” (Dictonary.com).
I believe that college sports should be considered a profession. Athletes deserve to be paid for their work. College athletics are a critical part of America’s culture and economy. At the present time, student-athletes are considered amateurs. College is a stepping-stone to the professional leagues. The NCAA is exploiting the student- athlete. Big-time schools are running a national entertainment business that controls the compensation rate of the players like a monopoly (Byers 1).
Throughout the years, America has always debated whether education is needed- if it helps people succeed or not. The argument in the past was always over high school education, which is now mandatory. That decision has helped the US rise economically and industrially. Today, the US is in the middle of the same debate- this time, over college. Some, like David Leonhardt, a columnist for the business section of The New York Times, think a college education creates success in any job. Others, such as Christopher Beha, an author and assistant editor of Harper’s Magazine, believe that some college “education” (like that of for-profit schools) is a waste of time, and can even be harmful to students. Each stance on this argument has truth to it, and there is no simple answer to this rising issue in an ever changing nation full of unique people. Any final decision would affect the United States in all factions- especially economically and socially. However, despite the many arguments against college, there is overwhelming proof that college is good for all students, academically or not.
Abstract: Collegiate athletes participating in the two revenue sports (football, men's basketball) sacrifice their time, education, and risk physical harm for their respected programs. The players are controlled by a governing body (NCAA) that dictates when they can show up to work, and when they cannot show up for work. They are restricted from making any substantial financial gains outside of their sports arena. These athletes receive no compensation for their efforts, while others prosper from their abilities. The athletes participating in the two revenue sports of college athletics, football and men's basketball should be compensated for their time, dedication, and work put forth in their respected sports.
O’Dubhslainé, A. 2006. The White Paper On Education: A Failure To Invest. Student Economic Review. 20 p 115