In the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia’s definition of “Amateur” it states, during the early 20th century “the American intercollegiate athletic system… adopted amateurism, claiming it developed competitors who were morally superior to professionals” (“Amateur”). Amateurism is the concept that athletes should compete without payment. Until recently, playing collegiate sports as an amateur was thought to be a noble calling. As time surpassed, college sports became a commercialized industry, generating billions of dollars in revenue. When this became apparent, the implementation of athletic scholarships became more relevant. The athletic scholarship seemed to be a more than fair way to delight athletes with some sort of incentive to ensure their participation in collegiate sports. However, many college athletes have become eager to receive a larger cut of the money. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has issued many regulations indicating the limitations of what athletes can and cannot receive in benefits and compensation. Many individuals argue that the NCAA and colleges are taking advantage of student athletes by not indulging them in the riches of collegiate sports. They believe because the students athletes are the ones spending their time both preparing and competing, they are deserving of a share of the athletic programs’ revenues. Though being a college athlete entails a considerable amount of a student’s time, there are many reasons why the college athlete should not be paid. Therefore, student athletes should not be paid because it would discriminate against schools without the means to pay their athletes, it would alter the principles of college athletics, and it would further compensate student athletes ...
... middle of paper ...
...ic Search Complete. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.
Dosh, Kristi. “The Problems with Paying College Athletes.” Forbes: SportsMoney (2011). Web. 17 Nov. 2013.
Mitten, Matthew J., James L. Musselman, and Bruce W. Burton. "Targeted Reform of Commercialized Intercollegiate Athletics." San Diego Law Review 47.3 (2010): 779-844. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.
Parillo, Tony. "D-I Athletes Already Nicely Compensated." USA Today (2004): 2. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
“Reward College Athletes – with a Meaningful Education.” USA Today n.d.: Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
Shipnuck, Alan. “For the Love of the Game.” Sports Illustrated 103. 19 (2005): 50. Academic Search Complete. Web 13 Nov. 2013.
Shulman, James L. and William G. Bowen. The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values. Princeton University Press. New Jersey. 2001. Print.
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”
Van Rheenen, Derek. "Exploitation in College Sports: Race, Revenue, and Educational Reward." International Review for the Sociology of Sport 48.5 (2013): 550-71. Print.
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).
Woods, Al. “College Athletes Should Be Paid.” Sports and Athletes: An Anthology. Ed. Christine Watkins. Greenhaven Press, 2009. 87-94. Print.
“Should NCAA Athletes Be Paid?” US News. U.S. News and World Report, Apr. 2013. Web. 05
Eitzen, D. Stanley. "College Athletes Should Be Paid." Sports and Athletes. Ed. James D. Torr.
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.
Financial aspects and profitability of college athletic programs is one of the most important arguments involved in this controversy. A group of people expresses that college athletic programs are over emphasized. The point they show on the first hand, is that athletic programs are too expensive for community colleges and small universities. Besides, statistics prove that financial aspects of college athletic programs are extremely questionable. It is true that maintenance, and facility costs for athletic programs are significantly high in comparison to academic programs. Therefore, Denhart, Villwock, and Vedder argue that athletic programs drag money away from important academics programs and degrade their quality. According to them, median expenditures per athlete in Football Bowl Subdivision were $65,800 in 2006. And it has shown a 15.6 percent median expenditure increase fro...
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?
Thomas, Brennan. "Pay for Play: Should College Athletes Be Compensated?." Bleacher Report. TBS, 4 Apr. 2011. Web. 8 Dec. 2013.
PR, Newswire. "Economically Speaking, College Athletes Should Not Be Paid." PR Newswire US 23 July 2012: Regional Business News. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.
Zimbalist, Andrew S. Unpaid Professionals: Commercialism And Conflict In Big-Time College Sports. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 27 Mar. 2014.
Weistart, John C."College Sports Reform: Where are the Faculty." 4 12-17.Aug. 1987. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40249956. Web. 22 Apr. 2014
Paying college athletes has been an ongoing controversy for many years because of the NCAA’s mission to position their athletes as students first and foremost; but, are student athletes really going to college to get an education or to prepare for turning professional. Some argue that athletes are paid already with the compensation given such as free tuition, housing, athletic clothing, etc. However, others claim that athletes are not paid their fair market value. Zach Dirlam, a senior analyst for the Bleacher Report, and Jeff Dorfman, a contributor to Forbs, examine paying college athletes for two different audiences in their respective articles “There’s No Crying in College: The Case Against Paying College Athletes” and “Pay College Athletes?
Herbet D. Simans, Derek Van Rheenen, and Martin V. Covington focuses their argument on academic motivation of student athletes and what drives them to want to succeed in the classroom as well as on the court or field. Although Flynn also focuses on academic motivation of student athletes, he also discusses how colleges tend to spend more money on sports related necessities for the students instead of towards their education. Flynn’s argument displays how colleges are basically a business...