A billion-dollar market booming with profits. Could the implication of modern slavery be in place? Once a big time athlete takes a scholarship at a school the athlete signs up to the NCAA owning them. Colleges and the NCAA gross an immense amount of money off merchandise, TV deals, commercials, and ticket sales. Athletes, regardless of having a family to take care of or starving themselves, cannot profit off of this. Athletes aren’t able to profit off their own name during their tenure at a NCAA school, for the NCAA owns the rights to their name. This is being done to our college athletes. In the passage “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid” from “The Norton Sampler: Short Essays for Composition (8th Edition)” Joe Posnanski writes on how college athletes shouldn’t earn pay for playing, despite bringing titanic profits to these colleges. The reasoning for this includes college athletes already receiving scholarships, college athletics being centered around the college, and college athletics losing integrity and fairness as a result. It’s amazing having the privilege of attending an acclaimed and honored school like Duke or Stanford. Having your tuition fully paid for at one of these schools becomes a greater gift. Posnanski states, “Big-time athletes do get paid. They get free …show more content…
Ironically, the outcome of responding is simple. College athletes should be paid. Posnanski formed an argument of college athletes already receiving scholarships, college athletics being centered around the college, and college athletics losing integrity and fairness as a result. Posnanski’s points are flawed, and besides scholarships being valuable and students already receiving them Posnanski is flawed in thinking. College athletes bring lots of income to their schools, for them to not be able to profit off their name, or be in poverty despite bringing in money for their schools is
Tyson Hartnett of The Huffington Post once said “Even with any type of scholarship, college athletes are typically dead broke.” This quote regards a tremendous controversy that has been talked about for the past few years. He talks about whether or not college athletes should be paid for their duties. Despite the fact college athletes are not professionals, they should most certainly be paid for playing for their respective schools due to many factors. These factors include health risks and the income bring in for their colleges as well as to the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Posnanski, Joe. “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid.” Norton Sampler: Short Essays for Composition, 8th ed. Pages 584-590. 2013.
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.
Paying College athletes has been a trending topic around the National Collegiate Athletic Association over the years. Many have strong opinions about this topic, and the opinions vary. The discussion of paying college athletes began in 1991 when the famed Fab Five became a household name in the United States. The Fab Five is arguably the greatest recruiting class of all time; all attending the same school (Baxter). The Fab Five first created controversy when they started to question why the university and university officials were making millions and millions of dollars off their names, and they were just deprived hungry college kids not making a dime. Nike even made billions by copyrighting their famed black athletic socks, black athletic shoes, and baggy shorts that they made famous throughout the nation. The question over the past several years has become a general and trending topic of argument. College athletes should not be paid for their performance or to perform for their universities because they are there for an education, questions will be asked, and universities would not make as big of an income off the games.
Athletes everywhere complain and gripe about how little money they have. What they don’t realize is, it’s not just them. Most college students do not have a sufficient amount of money that they can buy whatever they want. It is outrageous that athletes believe they are entitled to accommodations because they play sports. To play a sport at the collegiate level is a privilege (Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Not Be Paid). Students that participate in athletics should not receive any payment because they are receiving tons of benefits, free tuition, and this would extend the talent gap.
“Big time athletes do get paid. They get free college tuition.”(Posnanski). College athletes not only get tuition, but they also get room, board, and meals. They also get to be coached by top coaches, train in the best training facilities, travel around the country for free, be treated by the best doctors and medicine, and have their chance in the spotlight (Posnanski). With universities constantly raising tuition prices, having free tuition is a big thing, but most, if not all, athletes waste that by focusing just on their sport. The athletes themselves probably aren’t the only ones to blame. Practices should be cut shorter to allow the students’ time to study more and actually get a college education. While you hear many athletes complaining that they don’t have personal spending money, other college students can say the same thing. While athletes are practicing, others are working to pay off tuition fees, which the athletes get free. In an interview at his trial against the NCAA Ed O’Bannon, a former basketball player from UCLA, said “I was an athlete masquerading as a student. I was there strictly to play basketball. I did basically the minimum to make sure I kept my eligibility academically so I could continue to play.” (Dahlberg). People should be going to college for what it is meant for—education, not sports. College sports are an extracurricular activity that should be
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.
The college athletes of their respective sports today, have the opportunity of showcasing their talents in competition on local and national programming on a regular basis which has lately brought attention this controversy, paying college athletes. The issue was brought on by the athletes over time, then caught onto coaches, sports columnists, and fans. The athletes dedicate themselves to the sport to a caliber comparable to the professional tier. The idea of paying the athletes could be considered as they play major factor in reputation of their schools, as well as funds for their schools. However most colleges do not have profitable sports teams. Thus, paying athletes would prove to be a very difficult endeavor and this could destroy college athletics as we know them today.
College athletes should be paid! College athletes are often considered to be some of the luckiest students in the world. Most of them receiving all inclusive scholarships that cover all the costs of their education. They are also in a position to make a reputation for themselves in the sporting world preparing them for the next step. The ongoing debate whether student athletes should be paid has been going on for years. These athletes bring in millions of dollars for their respective schools and receive zero in return. Many will argue that they do receive payment, but in reality it is just not true. Costs associated with getting a college education will be discussed, information pertaining to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and benefits student athletes receive. First, I’ll start with costs associated with college and most of all why student athletes should be paid!
One reason that college athletes should be paid is because they earn their revenue that is distributed to coaches and colleges they represent. And is it not unusual to not even receive a little percentage of it. Major college sports earn around $11 billion dollars according to Marc Edelman who is an associate professor of law at Zicklin School of Business. According to Edelman, colleges that partake in college sports can earn up to $100 million in revenue. This revenue is used for paying coaches, college campus, and etc. This distribution of money is not wrong and has good intention. However, colleges spend too much on their expenses and don’t recognize the efforts of the athletes. For example, according Marc
Many books have talked about the history of the African American athletes, but in In Forty Million Dollar Slaves, William C. Rhoden takes a different approach, filled with poetic brio and passionate argument. Rhoden’s book has received endorsements from such well-known academics as Cornel West and Arnold Rampersad, and the book alludes to music, literature, and religion as well as history and politics. Its intent is as much prophetic as analytical. Rhoden argues that African American athletes are among the most famous and highest remunerated salaried individuals working today, but that doesn’t mean they have control over their own destinies. However, Rhoden is aware that his title, which suggests that even an athlete earning forty million dollars
Some people say that college athletes get paid by having a scholarship, but if you look at it a different way, scholarships might change your mind. Coaches try to get players who they think have the talent to make them win and to persuade them to come to their school by offering them scholarships. The whole idea behind a scholarship is to lure the athlete into coming to your school. Scholarships are nothing more than a recruitment tactic. They will give you a scholarship as long as you produce for them. It’s all about what you can do for them. Indeed these scholarships pay for tuition, room and board, and books, but these athletes don’t have money for other necessities. The NCAA doesn’t want friends or boosters to offer athletes jobs because they ...
Another reason that college athletes should not be paid is because they are, under NCAA rules, to be considered amateurs. In the National Collegiate Athletic Association Rules it states, “College athletes are not to be paid, not to cash in on their prominence, never to cross any kind of line of professionalism.” Steve Wieberg, of the USA Today, studied the rules that the NCAA has placed on paying college athletes. He concludes that, “Athletic programs are meant to be an integral part of the educational program” (Weinberg). The reoccurring theme here should be obvious now —education is the most important part of the student’s time in college and being an athlete should come second.
Many people view college athletics as a pastime, not a profession, and paying athletes would make these sports seem like a profession, not just a representation of the school (Sobocinski 289). The NCAA, and others who oppose compensation, believe in amateurism, the idea that college students should focus on academics first and athletics second (Amateurism 1). Also, they think student athletes are already receiving fair compensation for their work. College athletes receive full scholarships that cover tuition, fees, and books (How 1). Furthermore, these scholarships are granted for at least one year, in case a student suffers a sports injury, the student does not play as well as expected, or the coaching staff is changed (How 1). Some people argue that full athletic scholarships are enough ...
The college sports world has rules set in place to not give players compensation. Many people believe that since most of the athletes get huge scholarships, they don’t need compensation. Others argue that the main purpose of a college is to educate not entertain. The problem with theses scholarships is that they don’t even cover for all their expenses such as tuition, food, boarding, traveling, books, and other living expenses. The only reason many of these college athletes even attend college is too get noticed by scout and eventually go to the pros. College athletes deserve compensation for all their time and effort in their respective sports.