More handpicked essays just for you.
College student athletes compensation annotated bibliography supporting ideas
Impact of sport in education
Essay on sports benefiting education
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
College should not pay athletes This has always been an argument for many years and still don’t have any answers till this day. Many athletes want to get paid like professional athletes but colleges disagree. College athletes should not be paid because it would be unfair and would negatively impact students. Being a college athlete is a privilege. “only about 7 percent go on to do it. Only 2 percent of these people play in division” (Anderson 4). So many people dream to be that lucky person to get a free Scholarship to college playing your favorite sport. The athletes should realize that their giving an opportunity to be in college playing their favorite sport. There would be no fair way to pay every athlete. “only 23 of the 228 division
Tyson Hartnett of The Huffington Post once said “Even with any type of scholarship, college athletes are typically dead broke.” This quote is regarding 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 that college athletes are not professionals, they should most certainly be paid to play for their respective schools due to many factors. These factors include health risks and the income they 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
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.
College athletes should be paid because of the huge amount of money being made off of the use of their athletic ability. The college basketball and football games that everyone watches on TV is no longer just a game, it is a business. The colleges and arenas hosting such events are not doing it solely for the love of sport, they are doing it for the money that will flow generously into their banking accounts. The coaches also, they are not volunteers, they are not there just for their love of the game, coaching is their job. The athletic directors, coaching staff, and event staff are all doing their job to put food on the table. The fans are watching the game, the players, the ones who are making huge sacrifices to be on the court. The athletes are the only ones in this circle of business who are putting in the hours, maybe even the most hours, and not getting a paycheck. It is time for a change, the fans, the players, and the NCAA is ready for it, it just has to be done. However, there are those out there fighting the other side of this battle, saying there is no need for these student athletes to be paid. Both sides have good points but one of them has great points.
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?
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.
"The best argument against paying players is that it diminishes the value of an education" (qtd. in Zimbalist). State University has breached its academic standard by allocating unnecessary expenditures to athletically advanced students. Student athletes should not be paid at State University, because it focuses on an extracurricular activity as a means of profit, praises athletic ability over merit/ scholastics, promotes a bridge between players and regular students, and creates hierarchy between universities.
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!
College athletes should be paid because they are basically working for the school. When a student gets a scholarship to a college for a sport they are expected to practice with the team and without the team, so on their free time. College athletes go way over the maximum amount of hours they are allowed to practice with the team. A 2011 survey, from the article Should College Athletes Be Paid?, states “The NCAA has a limit of 20 hours of training per week, D1 football players on average practice 43 hours a week, baseball 42.1 hours a week, and men’s basketball 39.2 hours a week”(Walch). With
College athletes shouldn’t be paid because there is no fair way to pay all players of the NCAA. Patterson reveals the issues of paying college athletes equally, expressed when she stated "College football, as well as men’s and women’s basketball, are the money makers as far as collegiate athletics is concerned. Most other programs are actually cash strapped." Allowing college athletes to be paid would just create a very large burden of figuring out who would get paid, how much would they get paid, and who would pay them. Patterson also reveals the issues of the difficulty when she states "Is that really fair to the other student-athletes?" This exemplifies the complexity of paying college students and the burden that accompanies
A question that has been rising to the surface lately is “should college athletes be paid a salary?” One cannot get on the internet now a day and not see some kind of college sport headline. The world of college sports has been changed greatly the past decade due to college athletes. These athletes make insurmountable amounts of money and an unbelievable amount of recognition for the universities. The athletes that provide and make a ton of revenue for the colleges also spend a huge amount of their time practicing and staying committed to sports, and have to maintain good grades in school which requires quite a bit of overtime. Because college athletes generate massive amounts of revenue and put in massive amounts of personal time for their individual universities, colleges need to financially compensate players for their contributions. The colleges that these superstars represent are reaping all of the benefits of the accomplishments the athletes have, yet the big named players are making nothing from what they do.
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 athletics is a billion dollar industry and has been for a long time. Due to the increasing ratings of college athletics, this figure will continue to rise. It’s simple: bigger, faster, stronger athletes will generate more money. College Universities generate so much revenue during the year that it is only fair to the players that they get a cut. College athletes should get paid based on the university’s revenue, apparel sales, and lack of spending money.