Pay or no Pay for College Athletes
The debate on whether college- athletes should be paid or not has formed the main agenda in discourse that relate to college games. There is a growing call among many stakeholders for the introduction of a compensation program that would remunerate college athletes who participate in various sporting activities. There are numerous credible arguments as to why college athletes should be paid, but a majority of such arguments fail due to the reason that the fundamental duty of the university is not to entertain but to educate. Proponents for payment of college athlete bases their argument on the ground that because announcers and coaches are paid, athletes should also be paid. Such a move is believed to attract …show more content…
While football and basketball players would receive payment without difficulties primarily because of the popularity of the two events, but the question is what amount would go to each student (Meshefejian 2). Finally, college athletes already get money; majority of colleges give notable services to the athletes, who are held to a greater level than the rest of the students. They also have access to the best gymnasiums, receive free health cover from injuries sustained, free food and perhaps most importantly free …show more content…
The NCAA formulated a form of athletic scholarship that avoided unionization and wages for college athletes. In the same vein, this would have made sense in the early decades of the 20th century but not today when college athletic generate billions of dollars and require total commitment and tremendous efforts from athletes. Payment of college athletes is necessary because it is appropriate that the one who helps create value should at least share a portion of that value. It is essential to rethink the concept of amateurism because prevailing environment and changes over the years have rendered it obsolete (Institute of Sports Law and Ethics 3). The huge sums of money generated by educations institutions and the degree of commitment majority of college athletes make in order to be successful should be considered.
This paper has provided grounds why college athletes should be paid and why they should not be paid. It is evident that the body that was created (NCAA) to control and regulate college sporting activities is loath to allow payment of student on the basis that the scholarship provided is adequate. It has been illustrated that such scholarships are not commensurate with the cost of attendance, commitment and
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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 ...
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).
College athletes are undoubtedly some of the hardest working people in the world. Not only are they living the life of an average student, they also have a strenuous schedule with their specific sport. One of the most discussed topics in the world of college athletics is whether or not student-athletes should be paid money for playing sports. The people who disagree with the idea have some good arguments to make. Primarily that the athletes get to go to school for free for playing sports. Another argument is that if student-athletes were to get paid then it would ruin the amateurism of college sports. People who are against paying the athletes do not want to see the young people become focused on money. “Paying student-athletes would dramatically shift their focus away from where it should be - gaining knowledge and skills for life after college” (Lewis and Williams). This is very understandable because one of the biggest reasons college sports are so popular is because the athletes play for school pride and for bragging rights. They play because they enjoy the game, not because it is their job. Most people that disagree with the idea of paying the athletes fail to realize what really goes on behind the scenes. At most Universities around the country the bulk of the income the school receives is brought in through the athletic programs. In fact the football and basketball teams usually bring in enough money to completely pay for the rest of the athletic programs all together. To get a better understanding of how much has changed in the world of college sports a little history must be learned.
Considering the amount of money made annually by the athletic department, one would think that the college can give the college athletes more than just a few thousand dollars in scholarship money. Students should not be left with a medical bill due to services rendered on the field of a college team, nor should they be left penniless after giving their all to a college sport. Works Cited ESPN.com. The. " College Athletics Revenue and Expenses."
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.
Student athletes should not be paid more than any other student at State University, because it implies that the focus of this university is that an extracurricular activity as a means of profit. Intercollegiate athletics is becoming the central focus of colleges and universities, the strife and the substantial sum of money are the most important factors of most university administration’s interest. Student athletes should be just as their title states, students. The normal college student is struggling to make ends meet just for attending college, so why should student athletes be exempt from that? College athletes should indeed have their scholarships cover what their talents not only athletically but also academically depict. Unfortunately, the disapproval resides when students who are making leaps academically are not being offered monetary congratulations in comparison to student athletes. If the hefty amount of revenue that colleges as a conglomerate are making is the main argument for why athletes should be paid, then what is to stop the National Clearinghouse from devising unjust standards? Eventually if these payments are to continue, coaches, organizations, and the NCAA Clearinghouse will begin to feel that “c...
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!
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
According to the NCAA regulations an athlete will lose his/her eligibility if they are paid to play; sign a contract with an agent; receive a salary, incentive payment, award, gratuity educational expenses or allowances; or play on a professional team. The word amateur in sports has stood for positive values compared to professional, which has had just the opposite. The professional sport has meant bad and degrading; while the amateur sport has meant good and elevating. William Geoghegan, Flyer News sports editor writes, “Would paying athletes tarnish the ideal of amateurism? Maybe, but being fair is far more important than upholding an ideal” (Geoghehan 1).
Over the past few decades, there has been controversy over whether or not NCAA athletes should get paid in addition to the other incentives they already receive. This debate emerged in 1991 when the University of Michigan men’s basketball team, also referred to as the Fab Five, was recognized as the best recruiting class in college basketball history. Although NCAA athletes dedicate much of their time and energy to sport, they receive scholarships that cover majority of their college expenses giving them an unfair advantage, therefore student athletes should not get paid for participating in sport. (CHANGE THESIS A BIT)
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?
This year, 2017, Lebron James will make 31.1 million just from basketball this year. What about North Carolina NCAA basketball team for winning the championships? What about Alabama winning the NCAA football championships? Should college athletes be able to make money? Would they be able to handle it?
Not paying collegiate athletes is not fair. College football and men's basketball generate revenues of more than $6 billion every year. Yet not one penny goes toward paying the people who make the sports possible: the student athletes. None of the $6 billion dollars brought in every year by college football and basketball goes to paying the athletes that make it possible. That is only two sports bringing in that much money, just imagine all the money other sports bring in. If it was not for them, collegiate athletics would not exist and colleges wouldn’t be making that much money each year, so it is only fair to pay the people who make it possible.Michael Polak, states,"All colleges have work- study programs, so students can work in the library