College athletics has become massively popular among Americans over the past 30 years. This popularity has resulted in increased revenues for the NCAA and the colleges that compete; this increased revenue sparked the debate on whether or not college athletes should be compensated for more than just their athletic scholarships. At this point in time no college athletes are being legally compensated for their participation in their college athletic program. According to NCAA rules it is illegal to get paid for competing in an athletic program through the college. A common thing for these athletes is to be paid under the table or being compensated “illegally.” Many athletes find it difficult to stay in school with tuition prices increasing …show more content…
Athletes play an active role in the promotion of activities like the NCAA organization but do not benefit from the profits that are generated. This can be viewed as exploitation and is therefore unethical. Student athletes should be compensated for their work, as they are the sole reason for the Athletic Program’s surplus in revenue.
Another common argument is that full-ride scholarships given to the best athletes do not actually cover all their expenses, a lot of these students while being respected and publicly recognized still fall very near the poverty line. Another extremely important reason to pay college athletes is that paying college athletes would help entice them to finish their college degree. If athletes are paid to play, not only can they cover some of their college expenses that scholarships couldn’t they will continue to want to play because of monetary value of it.
Logistics wise it would be very simple for the university athletic programs to compensate their student-athletes, it has been suggested that every university pays the same flat rate to each college athlete for three years, then offer a raise to senior athletes, which would create a fairly large incentive for students to receive their
…show more content…
Paying athletes would undermine the primary role of universities which is to offer education. One reason is that the lifetime skills and education that athletes receive while in college cannot be equated to the amount they would receive were they to be paid. Athletes are also aware of the contractual agreements with the universities when signing their scholarship papers. The university caters for their upkeep and gives them an opportunity to play their preferred sport at a higher level as well as earn a degree. Another downside to paying all participants in college athletics is that not all college sports teams are profitable. For example, some of the less popular teams like swimming, tennis, or volleyball don’t earn the university much money. If we were to pay all these college athletes the college would lose money in these athletic areas. Another reason the NCAA has yet to change this rule is that people are worried that the students will be paid too much considering they are in college and don’t deserve/need extremely high paying
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”
Those who play popular and highly competitive college sports are treated unfairly. The colleges and universities with successful sports like football and basketball receive millions of dollars in television and ad space revenues, so do the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which is the governing body of big time college sports. Many coaches are also paid over $1 million per year. Meanwhile, the players that help the colleges receive these millions of dollars are forbidden to receive any gifts or money for their athletic achievements and performances. As a solution college athletes ...
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.
So everybody would get paid fair. While others may say or wrecks family history because if you have generations and generations go to one college than they started to get paid it might wreck that history because they will pick the highest paying one. That is not true though because if salary caps were put in everybody would get paid the same. In summary college athletes should be paid because they are too busy to have a job, the NCAA has enough money and they can put in salary caps so everybody get paid
... being paid. Many people prefer watching college sports over professional sports based on the idea that money isn’t involved in college sports. They are competing and giving everything they have for the love of their teammates, the love of their school, and above all, their love for the game. Paying athletes would ruin this standard of intercollegiate athletics. For all these reasons, college athletes should not be paid beyond their full ride scholarships.
Instead, put each collegiate player on salary (Thelin). Once again, there are too many flaws to count. For instance, to put a collegiate player on salary, the NCAA would have to take into concern state income tax (Thelin). Each state differs in this regard. Perhaps this will be used as a recruiting tool for universities. The team markets that their state has a lower state income tax than other schools. On top of taxes, the student-athlete would still need to pay for tuition, books, room and board, meal plans, etc. (Thelin). There are flaws to every solution, so why try and change what the NCAA has been doing for years.
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 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!
Student athletes deserve a payroll because of the vast amount of money they earn for their school. Schools like Texas, Alabama, and Oklahoma all make over $150 million dollars a year. The players should get a small amount of the profit added to their scholarships. It’s only fair that the players make some of that money. This is also one of the big reasons players are upset at the NCAA. They feel as though they should get paid for their efforts.
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.
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).
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.
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.
In many states, athletics in the academic system, are a big deal. Usually, the athletic department is what brings the most attention and revenue to the smallest of schools, to the largest. A topic of discussion that was brought up to my attention when March Madness began, was whether or not student athletes should be compensated for their hard work on the court or on the field. Many believe full ride scholarships should be enough, but not every athlete gets full ride scholarships. When determining whether a student athlete should be or should not be compensated, there are many factors to take into account.