These athletes receive free tuition, textbooks, rooms, meal, and training. So they should not be paid extra money on top of that. Athletes may have to train hard, but while they are training, non-athletic students are out working to pay off debts. By paying athletes, it would hurt many smaller universities without much athletic funding, as they would not be able to buy the best players like bigger colleges could. College sports are meant to bring players and fans together to celebrate their school, but sports are becoming too big a part of college life.
Some people argue that they need personal expense money. While this may be true, college athletes do not have the expense of college like other students who are paying for both college and personal expenses. While colle... ... middle of paper ... ...eel that athletes should be paid some of the money they make off of their merchandise. They want the athletes to be rewarded for the hard work they put in and for how much money they are making for the University. While all of this may be true, the true meaning of playing a sport in college is more than about money or fame, it is about the true love for the game.
Everyone has had some type of excitement after winning something. Nothing matters but the win without any thoughts of profit. Recently, there has been a debated question; should college students who play a sport get rewarded by being paid? I believe college athletes should not get paid for various reasons: they receive scholarships, perks and it would create problems with the university expenses. College athletes have been dedicating their time and hard work into the sport they have worked so hard to be respectable at.
College is the place to learn, get your education, and become successful. Paying a particular player is not going to be fair to the other players. Choosing a particular player and sport will also cause tension with other sports such as soccer, tennis, volleyball, basketball, and all the other sports that colleges offer. Athletes say that they are great at what they do and needs be recognized for their talent. If a great athlete gets recognized by a college and wants them to play for their team, that athlete already gets a free education plus more.
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 ... ... middle of paper ... ...hletes recruited to attend college come from lower, working-class families.
These changes should include granting student athletes stipends, better rules for agents, and clearer scholarships. “A scholarship doesn't equal cash in a player's pocket. Even with any type of scholarship, college athletes are typically dead broke” (Hartnett). Being an athlete in college is as demanding as a full time job. They also have to put the time in to be a full time student as well.
This issue has created a heated debate over the relationship between money and college athletes. On the contrary, the stronger argument lies with those individuals that say student athletes should not receive additional money, and how the NCAA is dealing with the situation right now is fine. In other words, athletes competing at the division one level do not need to be paid any amount of money on top of obtaining a scholarship. If the current law the NCAA has now is working, then it should not be fixed. Because this is such a huge topic, there are still arguments for the opposition.
Many may think the system is just right the way it is, but they are not the ones who is taking the beating these young adults take physically and mentally. The people who think it is right not to pay these kids are not considering the needs of the athletes. These colleges earn enough revenue to pay students, especially the top athletic programs. In conclusion, college sports will always be a huge money making industry in the United States. If they want to eliminate the problem of athletes taking bribes from boosters, they should take better care of their athletes by paying them for their
Free Rides Controversy strikes as talks of payment to college athletes are on the rise. Recent cases have brought about whether or not the country’s beloved student-athletes should be paid to play. The answer to that question is no, reason being that these “athletes” are students before anything, including a celebrity. College athletes, especially those who play football or basketball, are being compensated more than fairly enough through their scholarships as is. It’s public perceptions that the NCAA and/or the university these students attend are blatantly neglecting them.
Although these students participate and spend much of their time playing, they are no more special then the average student who attends the school. Putting the money back into the school itself allows everyone a better education, rather then just a few students, some spending money. There are also arguments that because of the rigorous sch... ... middle of paper ... ...” says Myles Brand the president of the NCAA. (USAtoday.com) The program continually complains that providing players unsanctioned funds spoils fair competition between teams, because some players will only want to go to schools with a reputation for providing players extras such as money, cars etc. While there are several arguments for a pay for play program, the downside to these arguments outweigh any chance of a program ever being put into action.