Over the past 20 years, college athletics has gained in popularity. College sports has become a household entity. Every child growing up has their favorite college team. Whether it be from family relations with alumni, geographic orientation or simply watching the sports colleges provide. In the world of college sports, there are three that stand out above the rest. Football, basketball and baseball are among the NCAA’s top-grossing sports. Billions of dollars are generated through marketing contracts, ticket-sales, and merchandising. Intercollegiate sports have boosted revenue as well as increasing the popularity and public image of their respective Universities. In an article published by USA Today Sports, during the 2014-2015 fiscal year, …show more content…
According to NCAA rules, “You are not eligible for participation in a sport if you have ever: Taken pay, or the promise of pay, for competing in that sport” (NCAA Regulations 1). The NCAA’s argument is that these rules are necessary to promote competitive balance. These rules also indicate that they have resulted in the economic exploitation of many college athletes. Still, universities refuse to share the bulk of the revenue sports generate with the athletes who make it possible (Marquette Sports Law Review 26.2). Due to these rules and regulations, many low-income student athletes struggle with the everyday life of college. One could argue the fact that many student-athletes are on scholarship, leading to a minimal cost out-of-pocket. The fact of the matter is that there are many other costs, other than tuition, when it comes to a college career. The inability to pay for certain aspects of college, I believe, add the violations that occur when a student-athlete accepts forms of payment. Many payments that are made are given to the athletes by school boosters, whom have large sums of money and can provide a variety of goods and services for …show more content…
Recently, the PAC-12 Conference offered a proposal that would allow athletes to make money off their names and likeliness. This idea would only require the slight alteration of the NCAA rule book while also taking pressure off Universities to pay their students Allowing players to make money on their own gives college sports the best chance of surviving in the 21st century. For one thing, it alleviates the pressure on schools to pay players themselves. You don’t have to buy in when people crow about the value of a scholarship, but when administrators say that most athletic departments can’t afford to pay a salary to 80 or 90 college football players while maintaining all the other sports, it’s generally true. Likewise, it’s bad enough that publicly funded state schools spend millions of dollars wooing coaches, but this could get awfully unhealthy if public schools are suddenly competing to pay players, too. It’s also fair to point out that most major college athletes aren’t the ones generating the revenue swirling around college sports. The same way people watch every Olympics regardless of who’s swimming, LSU football will fill Tiger Stadium no matter who’s playing. These are the practical arguments against turning the NCAA into a free-market economy overnight, and some of them make a decent amount of sense (Andrew
Public interest in college sports varies immensely. In 2015, the NCAA Men’s Division I College Basketball
Van Rheenen, Derek. "Exploitation in College Sports: Race, Revenue, and Educational Reward." International Review for the Sociology of Sport 48.5 (2013): 550-71. Print.
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.
College athletes attend post-secondary schools in order to receive an education and to participate in sports. “Student athletes participate in an organized competitive sport sponsored by the educational institution in which he or she is enrolled. Student athletes must typically balance the roles of being a full-time student and a full-time athlete” (“Student athlete” 1). Additionally, some people believe athletes should receive a salary. However, paying college athletes hurts the school, the sports, and the athletes.
“Big time athletes do get paid. They get free college tuition.”(Posnanski). College athletes not only get tuition, but they also get room, board, and meals. They also get to be coached by top coaches, train in the best training facilities, travel around the country for free, be treated by the best doctors and medicine, and have their chance in the spotlight (Posnanski). With universities constantly raising tuition prices, having free tuition is a big thing, but most, if not all, athletes waste that by focusing just on their sport. The athletes themselves probably aren’t the only ones to blame. Practices should be cut shorter to allow the students’ time to study more and actually get a college education. While you hear many athletes complaining that they don’t have personal spending money, other college students can say the same thing. While athletes are practicing, others are working to pay off tuition fees, which the athletes get free. In an interview at his trial against the NCAA Ed O’Bannon, a former basketball player from UCLA, said “I was an athlete masquerading as a student. I was there strictly to play basketball. I did basically the minimum to make sure I kept my eligibility academically so I could continue to play.” (Dahlberg). People should be going to college for what it is meant for—education, not sports. College sports are an extracurricular activity that should be
Beginning in the 1920s, public interest towards college sports sky rocketed with the growing opportunities of higher education for everyone, regardless of social status. This effect caused the Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Education to take a closer look into this fast growing industry in the “Carnegie Report” in 1929. The report made a plea to the NCAA to reduce the level of commercialization and improve academic integrity for all student-athletes. This is just the first time the NCAA receives this very recommendation. Post World War II brought another increase in college attendance with government financed aid to veterans. Widespread availability of televisions and radios lead to broadcasting of college sport events, bringing in a multitude of fans as well as the expected friends and family of athletes. Soon gambling and excessive means of recruiting tempted the industry and the NCAA was forced to...
Financial aspects and profitability of college athletic programs is one of the most important arguments involved in this controversy. A group of people expresses that college athletic programs are over emphasized. 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. And it has shown a 15.6 percent median expenditure increase fro...
Another reason that college athletes should not be paid is because they are, under NCAA rules, to be considered amateurs. In the National Collegiate Athletic Association Rules it states, “College athletes are not to be paid, not to cash in on their prominence, never to cross any kind of line of professionalism.” Steve Wieberg, of the USA Today, studied the rules that the NCAA has placed on paying college athletes. He concludes that, “Athletic programs are meant to be an integral part of the educational program” (Weinberg). The reoccurring theme here should be obvious now —education is the most important part of the student’s time in college and being an athlete should come second.
Howard-Hamilton, Mary F., and Julie Sina. "How College Affects College Athletes." New Directions for Student Services (2011): 35-43.
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...
The reality is that college sports programs, namely the "big name" programs such as football and basketball programs at marquee schools, are businesses that stand to make a large amount of money for their respective schools. According to an article in the Harvard Journal on Legislation, "[i]n the past twelve years, the amount of money generated by these two sports has increased nearly 300%, such that they now fund almost all other sports programs. 41 Harv. J. on Legis. 319. The student-athletes who participate in these programs are part of the reason why these schools stand to make such handsome profits: through ticket sales, endorsement deals, broadcasting deals, and jersey sales (although player names cannot be represented on jerseys), among other things.
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 ...
Even though that may be the case, most colleges couldn’t afford to pay their student athletes. As much as people like to think, these colleges are not professional franchises. Colleges definitely make a lot of money, but they won’t have enough to pay all their athletes. In 2012, “only 23 out of 228 athletic departments at NCAA Division I public colleges made enough money to cover their expenses.” I know that everybody loves college sports. The reason they love it so much is because they don't pay to play. They play because they love the game. I would like to see college athletes continue to play for the love of the game and not so, the amateurs that they are, can play to earn money. Michael Lewis and Bob Williams’ article "Should College Football Players Be Paid? Opponents Say it Would Ruin an Amateur Sport; Proponents Say College Football Already Seems Professional” discusses both sides to the argument of whether college athletes should be paid. Williams makes a good point when saying, “There is a misperception that university athletic departments are profit machines that make millions of dollars. In fact, in the past decade, only six universities consistently made a profit from athletics.” This proves that not all colleges are loaded with money. Williams thinks they are
College football is beneficial for both the players and city. College football is more than a sport for entertainment; it’s a sport that has been the unifier for colleges, players, and most Americans. It brings people together; strangers standing side-by-side, jumping, getting excited, high-fiving one another, cheering on a group of fifty men playing a game. The cities that host the game are receiving more recognition. Intelligence Squared hosted a debate on whether the sport should be banned. One debater Malcolm Gladwell(2012) stated:
Today, there are numerous problems and issues that haunt the world of college sports. Throughout the history of sanctioned college sports, there have been many situations in which the NCAA or other governing bodies have had to change their rules to aid in rectifying these situations. However, the forefathers of the NCAA and college sports never could have imagined what the state of college sports would be like today. All problems that the NCAA is currently facing, can in certain manors be tied together to form a few larger issues within the world of college sports. When these problems can be rectified, then the world of college sports can be reformed into its proud former state.