An Athlete’s True Wages If there’s one thing we dread in the summer more than the heat, it’s the afflicting sentiment that surrounds oneself when one is inhibited from experiencing the thrills of football for six long and gruesome months. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) football is a part of many Americans’ Saturdays, but to fewer does it mean their lives. Recently coming under debate, many sporting fans and college athletes believe that players should be paid more than just tuition, room, board, and books. Two articles on this issue that bring up valid points worth discussing are Paul Marx’ “Athlete’s New Day” and Warren Hartenstine’s “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid.” From these articles I have found on the basis of logical, …show more content…
This is because, though he is an English professor at the University of Maryland, he doesn’t provide more than a lawsuit or group of unhappy athletes that support his argument. He doesn’t have an apparent background in college sports, nor does he use expert opinion on the issue to back up his pressing opinion. In “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid,” a response to the previous argument that also appeared in the Baltimore Sun, former Penn State football player Warren Hartenstine argues that “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid.” Like Marx, Hartenstine is writing to a similar audience, but argues why student-athletes shouldn’t be paid above scholarships like professional athletes are. In reasoning with his readers, Hartenstine provides statistics that correct Marx’ argument on student-athlete graduation rate. He states, “82 percent of Division I freshmen scholarship student-athletes who entered college in 2004 earned a degree. In Division II, 73 percent of freshmen student-athletes who entered college in 2004 graduated” (Hartenstine, 476). He wants readers to feel that it isn’t the college that is failing the students. The students can do fine coping with school and sports with the aid of tutoring and assistance programs in place at colleges. I found it easier to accept that players don’t need to be paid because the school is investing more into their education than just
They do not face problems of debt and tuition to the extent that the normal college student faces. Student-athletes are fairly compensated through publicity and financial benefits, and the NCAA should continue to refrain from paying them. The varying size and interest levels of universities makes it almost impossible to fairly pay all athletes. In order to avoid problems like those exhibited by Northwestern’s football team, who recently tried to unionize, all athletes would need to be paid equally. The excitement brought on by college sports is immense, and problems created due to paying athletes would only hurt the tradition and charisma that college athletics offer. In conclusion, College athletes are students and amateurs, not employees. “Remember student comes first in student-athlete”
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.
Should college athletes receive pay for what they do? You’ve probably seen this pop-up a million times, and thought about it. You’ve probably figured why should they? Aren’t they already receiving benefits from a full-ride scholarship? But then an athlete will get caught up in a scandal like Johnny Manziel, where he signed footballs for money.. then you think well why shouldn’t he receive that money? And you then contradict yourself. But shouldn’t they receive money from outside sources, and then the benefits from the school. Not get a salary from the school just the benefits they’re already receiving, and money from sponsors. Wouldn’t that make sense considering the money they’re making the school? According to an ESPN report Alabama University makes $123,769,841 in total revenue from sports. (College Athletics Revenue) Yes ONE HUNDRED & TWENTY THREE MILLION. Yet an athlete from Alabama can only receive benefits from a scholarship.. That doesn’t seem right. You would want to be payed when the opportunity arises. It should only be fair these players get a piece of the revenue pie, after all they are the ones creating the revenue. The players should be getting benefits to allow them to pay for basic college needs, grow up to be responsible adults, and allow the NCAA to thrive. This would allow for the NCAA to truly thrive as a sporting association.
College athletes generate millions of dollars for their schools each year, yet they are not allowed to be compensated beyond a scholarship due to being considered amateurs. College athletes are some of the hardest working people in the nation, having to focus on both school courses and sports. Because athletics take so much time, these student-athletes are always busy. College football and basketball are multi-billion dollar businesses. The NCAA does not want to pay the athletes beyond scholarships, and it would be tough to work a new compensation program into the NCAA and university budgets. College athletes should be compensated in some form because they put in so much time and effort, generating huge amounts of revenue.
The debate on whether college athletes should be paid to play is a sensitive controversy, with strong support on both sides. College athletics have been around for a long time and always been worth a good amount of money. This billion dollar industry continues to grow in popularity and net worth, while they continue to see more and more money come in. The student-athletes who they are making the money off of see absolutely none of this income. It is time that the student-athletes start to see some of this income he or she may by helping bring the National Collegiate Athletic Association. There are many people who do not think this is in the best interest of the student-athletes or Universities, but that being said there are also many people who are in favor of the change.
There are many aspects to an NCAA players eligibility, most of them are disputed against. One of these topics is players getting paid. Numerous questions are raised by this topic. The largest of these questions is “Should NCAA players get paid?.” Surprisingly, the pros for paying the athletes outnumber the reasons for not paying them. The athletes are basically workers for their school, they devote hours to their sport, they take time out of their classes, thus making their scholarships less valuable, and the NCAA teams would be more successful.
Should college student-athletes be paid has become a much debated topic. The incentive for a student-athlete to play a college sport should not be for money, but for the love of the game. It has been argued that colleges are making money and therefore the student-athlete should be compensated. When contemplating college income from sporting events and memorabilia from popular sports, such as football and basketball, it must not be forgotten that colleges do incur tremendous expense for all their sports programs. If income from sports is the driving factor to pay student-athletes, several major problems arise from such a decision. One problem is who gets a salary and the second problem is how much should they be paid. Also, if the income from the sports do not cover the cost of the student-athlete salaries, tuition cost will most definitely rise. The flip side is that the student-athlete entered college, in many instances with a scholarship, chose to play a particular sport because they like to play the game and have therefore decided to participate and should not expect to be paid as a professional athlete. By paying student-athletes a salary would dramatically alter college life for student-athletes as well as non-student-athletes.
The argument that college athletes should be paid as been ongoing for many years. With the growing rise of college athletes’ popularity in the media, many people believe that college athletes should be paid, but they do not see the negative effects of the payments. The payments of college athletes could cause their price of enrollment to rise, forcing many students to transfer to other universities or not attend college at all. It may also cause fan ratings to drop because the relatability factor would disappear. Along with university budget cuts appearing, academic scholarships and athletic scholarships would disappear. College athletes should not be paid because college athletes are students and not professional players, the deep connection
The payment of NCAA student-athletes will deteriorate the value of an education to the athletes. The value of an education for a young man or woman cannot be measured. It is our gate way to success as...
The huge amount of money being made off college sports has led some to question whether student-athletes can be considered amateurs any longer, and whether they should, instead, be paid for their efforts, the argument can be made that the opportunity to both receive an education and get the exposure to win a major professional contract more than compensates NCAA athletes for their
College athletics is a billion dollar industry and has been for a long time. Due to the increasing ratings of college athletics, this figure will continue to rise. It’s simple: bigger, faster, stronger athletes will generate more money. College Universities generate so much revenue during the year that it is only fair to the players that they get a cut. College athletes should get paid based on the university’s revenue, apparel sales, and lack of spending money.
There are many people out there that believe that college athletes should not be paid because they are called to be a student first and an athlete second (Farrey). There are an ample amount of people and articles that suggest that paying college athletes is unfair and that they do not deserve to be compensated for their contributions to their respective schools. These people argue that these athletes and “st...
In recent years, the argument about whether or not to pay athletes playing at the college level has become a matter of national debate. Currently, the ruling is that college athletes cannot be paid. This is a stance that should be maintained. Paying athletes to compete at the collegiate level is unfeasible because it would cost colleges too much, influence student’s educational decisions and create an unfair financial atmosphere between athletes and non-athletes.
His article begins by exemplifying credibility when he hyperlinks his figures to certified sources: “Should college athletes get a piece of the $871.6 million pie the NCAA brings in annually?” (Dirlam par. 2). Dirlam does not talk about his experience with sports to develop his reliability, rather he begins by showing that he has done extensive research with his hyperlinked sources. His article can be viewed as credible since he has indisputable evidence to back up his claims. Dirlam, in particular, connects with the reader by appealing to the reader’s emotions, since he has very similar experiences to the intended audience and sympathizes with them when student athletes are compared to average college students. Specifically, Dirlam allures the reader’s emotion when he mentions how each athlete will leave a university free of debt. He continues his sympathy by connecting to the audience when he comments, “I’m willing to bet some of you reading this are still paying off college loans, or took quite a while to do so. Heck, I have racked up over $80,000 in tuition fees over the past four years in college” (Dirlam par. 17-18). College students are burdened with heavy expenses associates with attending college such as student loans, tuition, school supplies, health expenses, fees, clothing, etc. One of the biggest expenses is repaying student loans because not only do the students have to pay the principle amount but also they have to pay high interest rates and fees causing financial stress upon graduation. Athletes, on the other hand, receive all of these items and services listed above for free thus cutting the cost of their attendance significantly. To know that athletes do not have to worry about loans is somewhat frustrating to the readers. The stark
Between class, keeping up with their studies, participating in multiple practices and games per week, it is very hard for a college athlete to maintain a healthy and balanced lifestyle. Not to mention, these students have little time to sleep, eat, or even maintain a part time job, so that they can earn even a small income. Even though these college students receive many athletic scholarships and do get benefits like athletic apparel and fame for being a college athlete, they have no time or money for themselves. There are many pros and cons to adding college athletes to the pay roll, but does the good really outweigh the bad? The debates will continue to rise on the pressing issue of whether or not college athletes should be paid any further than the scholarships they receive. Adding college athletes to the school’s payroll is definitely something that can happen, just maybe not anytime in the foreseeable