Many athletes can’t even afford to have their family come to the stadium and watch them play. For example, “The Average University of Texas Football Player Is Worth $605,000”, yet several of these players are live near the poverty line. Due to college athlete’s the lack of money, “boosters” are created. A booster is someone that represents a university that bribes players with money and cars so they can play sports at their university or college. Even though it is a great idea, according to the NCAA it is illegal for them to give money to college athletes. One the greatest quarterbacks in NFL, Reggie Bush, was bribed by a booster.
Reggie Bush was paid by a booster to be the running back the University of South Carolina. When Bush was caught, he was massively criticized by others and even had to return his Heisman trophy. Although Reggie Bush actions were wrong, it is tough to give him any criticism. Before reaching the NFL, Bush didn’t not come a wealthy family. Even with a full-ride scholarship, it was almost impossible for him to cover all of his expenses. So when a booster offered to take the weight off of Bush’s back and pay his mother rent, he felt obligated to take the offer. If college athletes were compensated to play in the NCAA, then they wouldn’t have to worry
…show more content…
A “full” scholarship should pay for a full education, not part of it. No one wants to see their hard work go down the drain. The truth is, several of these college athletes are being paid under the table anyhow. Why not put an end to “boosters” and legally compensate these hard working athletes. Some think that paying athletes is unjust to regular college students. While paying college athletes may seem unjust to others, there are several benefits that come with paying athletes while in college. One of the benefits is financial security. Knowing that you have all the funds you need to get through college is the most
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 ...
First lets explore the history behind the paying of college athletes. Over the past 50 years the NCAA has been in control of all Div.1, 2 and 3 athletic programs. The NCAA is an organization that delegates and regulates what things college athletes can and can’t do. These regulations are put in place under the label of ‘protecting amateurism’ in college sports. This allots
The schools should not be paying them a salary, but rather allowing their athletes to receive money for their likeness, and/or time. Now not every player is good enough to be promoted like others, it would raise the playing field in college football. It’s very selfish of the NCAA to promote these players and making money off of them with compensating them. When you look at it; it’s si...
In the beginning of inter-collegiate competition and even now the governing body the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) wanted athletes to maintain their amateurism. Being an amateur means, to remain unpaid why competing and performing a c. Athletes were to come from the student body and off-campus recruitment of athletes was prohibited. The problem with the many rules and regulations of the NCAA early on was that they expected schools to police themselves and uphold a certain amount of morality, but without checks and balances corruption was sure to take place and did so. From the late 1920’s and into the 1940’s big-time athletes would be “sponsored” by alumni in order to get them to play for that schools team. The alumni would usually just pay the tuition for the athlete and usually it was seen as a loan but rarely got paid back.
College athletes are manipulated every day. Student athletes are working day in and day out to meet academic standards and to keep their level of play competitive. These athletes need to be rewarded and credited for their achievements. Not only are these athletes not being rewarded but they are also living with no money. Because the athletes are living off of no money they are very vulnerable to taking money from boosters and others that are willing to help them out. The problem with this is that the athletes are not only getting themselves in trouble but their athletic departments as well.
Even the waterboy gets paid! NCAA football is a billion dollar a year empire, in which coaches, executives, school presidents, board members, athletic trainers, athletic directors, equipment managers, Waterboys, towel boys, ball boys, and even team mascots all receive a chunk of the revenue. Everyone gets paid except the athletes, who don’t receive a dime of the money. That’s because it’s against NCAA rules to pay college athletes with anything other than an athletic scholarship; anything else, and it’s deemed as an improper benefit, thus making an athlete ineligible if he/she were to accept. The NCAA defends its rule of “no-pay” by claiming that all its student-athletes are “amateurs” and not employees; therefore, they’re legally not compensated. The argument over whether student-athletes should be paid or not, is particularly unsettling within the sport of football, because NCAA football is the most popular and profitable sport of all college athletics. The NCAA’s discrepancy over whether it should pay its players or not, currently has the association fighting a lawsuit filed by former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, who’s suing for compensation on behalf of former Division I football and men’s basketball players. The lawsuit challenges the NCAA’s use of student-athletes’ images and likeness for commercial purposes (PBS.org). In recent months the argument has been geared more towards whether current student-athletes should be paid or not, particularly football players, who like former Texas A&M star quarterback Johnny Manziel, provide the athleticism and entertainment that makes NCAA football the million dollar empire that it is. So, should college football players be paid?
In recent years the idea of student-athletes getting paid for playing in college has become more and more popular. There have been many instances where questions have been raised surrounding some of the finest athletes participating in the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Some of the biggest names in athletics have been involved, including Cam Newton, Reggie Bush, Johnny Manziel, along with many more athletes who have been exposed by the media for supposedly accepting cash benefits while in college. Most recently Johnny Manziel has been brought up in an autograph scandal. Apparently he was paid ten-thousand dollars for more than over one thousand and one hundred autographs. Ultimately Manziel was only suspended one half of a full collegiate football game, but is it really fair that he was forced to sit a half of football game because he simply gave some people his John Hancock? Reggie Bush and Cam Newton have both been involved in scandals involving mone...
Most successful college sports teams rake in millions of dollars in revenue. Steve Spurrier, the coach for the Florida Gators signed a six year contract where he would make a little over 2.5 million dollars a year not including certain benefits like a free car for his wife. So with the institutions and coaches getting rich off their player who is to say that the player does not deserve a share of the wealth? Most college athletes get around 200-250 dollars a month for living expenses and spending money, this is very small compared to the student who has time to work. Some people say that athletes get paid by having a scholarship but if you look at the ulterior motive behind scholarships I think people would change their minds. Coaches try to get players who they think have the talent to make them win and to persuade them to come to their school they try to give them scholarships. So the whole idea behind a scholarship is to lure the student to come to your school. Scholarships are just a recruitment tactic. Don’t confuse what I am saying though I don’t think college players should be making millions of dollars but there should be a set salary for all p...
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!
On a podcast from virginiaforusa.com the speaker Doug Merril said " colleges give most of the major athletes huge sums of money through scholarships some of these scholarships can be worth up top 200,000 dollars."Colleges shouldn’t have to pay athletes if they already get money
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.
Some people say that college athletes get paid by having a scholarship, but if you look at it a different way, scholarships might change your mind. Coaches try to get players who they think have the talent to make them win and to persuade them to come to their school by offering them scholarships. The whole idea behind a scholarship is to lure the athlete into coming to your school. 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 ...
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. No, there is simply more to it. Most schools barely come by enough money to pay student-athletes, whether it be basketball, football, baseball, or even tennis and golf.
There has been an extensive debate over the years about college athletes being paid and I honestly don’t see why there is a debate about it at all. The NCAA has strict rules about players receiving benefits from the school in forms of helping players and their families in the form of paychecks or even helping pay bills. College sports bring in an enormous amount of money for the schools every year and are expected to be given nothing in return. Sports do not only bring in money to schools but also more students and fans. The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) have taken several players’ records and rewards from them for the simple fact of getting benefits from the school and that is just not acceptable (Allen 115). Athletes are just like every other student in the way of having to pay for housing, food, bills, and more. Having to balance school and sports gives athletes no time to have jobs which means they do not have a way to bring in money to pay for the essentials of going to
...utions. (David Meggyesy, Personal Communication, December 12, 2000) Furthermore, because current NCAA rules make it difficult for these athletes to earn enough money to cover their normal living expenses, he believes they often have to turn to the "black market" (i.e. boosters) for financial support. (David Meggyesy, Personal Communication, December 12, 2000)