The world cannot operate and function right if half the people in the world became athletes and so forth. All the scholarships and free tuition are great. But when it comes to paying athletes for playing a non professional sport in college, it reaches the limit. The state is already complaining that they are broke. There are numerous of ways of spending money wisely than paying college athletes.
It may lead to athletic departments becoming more of a business instead of helping athletes receive an education. Student athletes have more passion for their sport because they are fighting to play. Spectators love college athletes because the athletes are playing for the school and not money. Paying college athletes to play could benefit the players but it would only create more problems for other athletes, students and universities. The innocence of college sports would be taken away if college athletes are paid.
According to Fred Bowen, “only football and men’s basketball are money-making college sports. Most others, such as field hockey, wrestling and swimming, do not attract big crowds or make big bucks.” (Should college athletes get paid?). Also the sports team that give out the most money for athletes to come and play for them, are football and men’s basketball. “Critics of paying college athletes note that only a small number of them compete in sports or on teams that actually generate revenue. They argue that if players were paid, a handful of exceptional athletes would receive large salaries while most players would receive a pittance, and would probably no longer be offered valuable athletic scholarships” (Paying College Athletes).
One consequence of passing a law relating to student-athletes receiving money may be possibly corrupting the NCAA system. Because the argument is based on how much the sport makes for the school, gambling and shaving points may occur more frequently in intercollegiate athletics. Shaving points is a method people use to pay off players if they miss shots on purpose in order to lose. Already a huge problem, this suggests athletes might have easier access to money and would affect their play. Another reason that athletes should not get paid is because they aren’t professionals yet.
All this does is replace the notion of the athlete getting a job for a source of income. This will also help reduce the rate at which athletes accept money, cars, and gifts from boosters. When athletes get caught accepting something from a booster it looks bad on the athlete and the college. So, in my opinion yes college athletes should get paid, there is too much money that the universities have earned floating around going unanswered for the athletes not to get their cut.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Colleges use athletes and sports as a backbone for their institution. They depend on their athletes to produce and build the reputation of their institution. If these athletes are bringing in so much money for these colleges, why are they not getting paid? Some may argue that athletes should not be paid because their goal should be to receive a college education. The NCAA feels that an education is enough for athletes.