Women’s sports would likewise be targeted, as they usually operate at a higher cost than they bring in revenue (Walker 1). For colleges operating with lower budgets, having sports programs may become completely impossible. As sports editor Al Dunning said “Where are athletes going to play- and receive scholarships- when all but the richest schools go broke?” (1). The promise of a paycheck could definitely be a deciding factor in rising students college decisions. A quarterback with the ... ... middle of paper ... ...he issue will argue heatedly for their case.
College athletes play the game that they love. To begin with, student athletes being paid would only create more problems for other athletes, students and universities. It would be challenging to distinguish who gets paid what and how the universities would raise academic funds? The funds that may go towards academics would be slim if the athletes were being paid. There would not be any money left over for the schools to get tutored, hire better teachers, or acquire updated technology.
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.
The point they show on the first hand, is that athletic programs are too expensive for community colleges and small universities. Besides, statistics prove that financial aspects of college athletic programs are extremely questionable. It is true that maintenance, and facility costs for athletic programs are significantly high in comparison to academic programs. Therefore, Denhart, Villwock, and Vedder argue that athletic programs drag money away from important academics programs and degrade their quality. According to them, median expenditures per athlete in Football Bowl Subdivision were $65,800 in 2006.
The first reason that people have shown views against pay for play is because scholarships pay for college athlete’s school either fully or partially. Secondly people believe pay for play would create jealousy and hypocrisy on college campuses between administration, college students, and other civic workers. The first reason that people have been convinced about pay for play is overpaid college coaches who make millions for the little work they do. Next the NCCA, Colleges, and merchandisers profit millions off the athletes every week without any of that revenue given back to the athletes. Next people believe scholarships are ineffective or incomplete.
However, there is a noticeable negative impact on the student athletes. To begin, college athletics benefit universities by making them visible to the outside world. The better a team does nationally, the more attention it receives. Notre Dame is known for it’s dominate football team. However, it is also their academic standards and achievements.
Many individuals argue that the NCAA and colleges are taking advantage of student athletes by not indulging them in the riches of collegiate sports. They believe because the students athletes are the ones spending their time both preparing and competing, they are deserving of a share of the athletic programs’ revenues. Though being a college athlete entails a considerable amount of a student’s time, there are many reasons why the college athlete should not be paid. Therefore, student athletes should not be paid because it would discriminate against schools without the means to pay their athletes, it would alter the principles of college athletics, and it would further compensate student athletes ... ... middle of paper ... ...ic Search Complete. Web.
It doesn’t make sense that the athletes are the ones that are doing all the work to get the far yet they don’t see any form of compensation. Many executives from the NCAA and the universities also get millions of dollars from big sporting events, and they do nothing to earn it. The athletes are the ones taking stuff out of their time and working hard to not get paid. As I said in my last paragraph, many athletes who receive full ride scholarships have been given thousands of dollars for tuition, a meal plan, free books, and school fees, just to play sports. These athletes are also entitl... ... middle of paper ... ... support the idea of student athletes getting payed for their hard work.
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.
To pay or not to play? Such is the question facing big-time college sports. At most colleges, athletics are a key source of income, as well as an attraction to the university. Many argue that student-athletes should not be paid because they already receive money through athletic scholarships. On the other side of the argument, people argue that college athletics generate enough money for the university, that the athletes should receive more than just a scholarship.