Next people believe scholarships are ineffective or incomplete. Lastly people believe the corrupt system of the NCAA is a reason college athletes should be paid. The NCCA has proposed plans to enact a pay for play plan including adding a two thousand dollar stipend for student athletes but this has been on hold for now. In society for student athletes to succeed in college and college careers the NCCA must pay them. Many writers and journalist have responded to the pay for play issue sharing many different and mixed views about pay for play.
Paying college athletes is a bad idea because of the cost associated with it. According to equal rights policies and other rules by the NCAA, colleges are required to pay all athletes, regardless of gender, sport played, publicity for the college from the sport, or proficiency in the sport. This means that colleges like the University of Tennessee, which has over 500 student athletes, would have to devote a large portion of their athletics budget to paying student athletes. According to Jim Walker, these massive costs may cause colleges to close less profitable activities like tennis or golf in an effort to save money for the big, money-making sports such as football and basketball (1). Women’s sports would likewise be targeted, as they usually operate at a higher cost than they bring in revenue (Walker 1).
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... ... middle of paper ... ...ug. 2013.
As revenue driven colleges begin to prioritize athletics, the emphasis on the quality and standards of an undergraduate education are diminishing. Compromising their academic acceptance requirements, universities have now found that the educational ability of their newly accepted student athletes are inadequate, to say the least (Gurney). The same universities must then spend millions of dollars to provide these athletes with “learning specialists”, who in turn helps them to meet academic requirements and maintain their eligibility (... ... middle of paper ... ...Chester E., Jr. "The Cost of College Sports." Commentary 112.3 (2001): 53. Literature Resource Center.
The current athletics systems in many large colleges are no longer beneficial to student-athletes or the academic premise the schools were founded under and are in need of intensive restructuring. Ernest Boyer, former president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching said, "I believe that the college sports system is one of the most corrupting and destructive influences on higher education" (1999). In fact, it is widely acknowledged that there is corruption by many college coaches in the areas of recruiting, eligibility, degree progress, and academic integrity of athletes. The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association), the national governing and accrediting agency for college athletics, possesses the duty of policing such offenses, but it is currently in a position to make huge profits off big-time sports, despite their continued claims of a non-profit status. The NCAA’s inconsistent enforcement of violations, seemingly based on the size of a program, has fueled many questions regarding the appropriateness of their role as a rules enforcement organization.
Also in the 1950s, the term “student-athlete” was created by long term NCAA President Walter Byers to avoid the athletes coming off as employees of the state and therefore they would not be receiving wages. In 2006, President Myles Brand to the NCAA and agreed that college athletics should remain as amateurs but they need to accept that college sports has indeed become a commercial business. (“Should College Athletes Be Paid?”). With clear evidence that college sports are bringing in more and more revenue for their schools, it seems that the schools would now be able to afford to pay their student athletes for the work and time that they are putting in. There are so many questions as how to make paying the students work, such as: how do you decide what sports get paid, how much does each student get, should students that bring in more revenue for the school get paid more and should each scho... ... middle of paper ... ...an trying to place college athletes in the pay positions of professionals.
The concern that average American students perform worse than most students from other developed countries has trigged debate that whether U. S should still support school sponsored sports program. Although research shows potential positive relationship between sports and academics, U. S high school should stop sponsoring sports program because of huge price both students and school paid in order to participate in physical activities, including money and time. It is undeniable that expense on sports are incredibly large.
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.