Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Sports funding in america
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Sports funding in america
“College Sports Dilemma” Over the years, college athletics has seem to become more of a “business”, instead of it being more about the student athlete`s. While the top sports universities continue to be successful and make money off of ticket sales, television revenue, merchandising and alumni support; not all schools can keep up. If a universities sports team is not winning enough, they will often have to rely on general funding from the university to help balance the budget for the athletics department. When universities have to take money out of the academic mission to help balance the budget for the athletics department, this then raises questions on the priorities of the universities. To help clarify the issue, there will be a lot of …show more content…
Ramogi Huma, who is a former linebacker for UCLA says in “A Fair Day`s Pay for a Fair Day`s Work,” “the NCAA argues that college athletes are paid with a free education. The reality is that players ' opportunities are not free, and half of the revenue-producing athletes don 't graduate.” Most athletes are either dropped from their scholarship and can no longer afford to go to college to graduate or they decide to leave early to play at the professional level. If the NCAA allowed college athletes to be paid, then this would significantly increase the graduation rate at universities. College athletes could be considered employees with all the hours they put in to practice and traveling with their teams. At some schools, the road to the NCAA men`s basketball championship can require a student athlete to miss almost a quarter of their classes in the spring semester. Since athletes put so much time and effort into preparing for games and traveling during the season, they do not have the time to get a job to earn any money. Which means they do not have much to work with when they want to do something during their free …show more content…
First off, not all scholarships are 100 percent paid for. A good amount of student athletes are on or get just half a scholarship or even less and while education is important for people to have, it cannot pay for any health bills if an athlete is injured. Brian Frederick, who is a professor at Georgetown University for the Sports Industry Management Program says in his article “Fans Must Understand That College Sports is Big Business,” “if a student-athlete is hurt or unsuccessful, the coaches and administrators suddenly discard the noble ideals of ‘education’ and a player is left with nothing.” Majority of the athletes that get a scholarship to play a sport cannot afford to get an advanced education without it. For student athletes, a scholarship is their golden ticket to go to a university, which is an experience everyone should have. However, if the student athlete does not meet certain requirements on the field or court or even worse, they get injured, then they can lose that scholarship in a matter of seconds. Also, if the athlete gets injured, they are more than likely going to need help paying the hospital bills. Frederick states, “how can a ‘free education’ compensate them for debilitating injuries caused during their time on campus?” So it seems that since the player was playing a sport to entertain fans that the
They do not face problems of debt and tuition to the extent that the normal college student faces. Student-athletes are fairly compensated through publicity and financial benefits, and the NCAA should continue to refrain from paying them. The varying size and interest levels of universities makes it almost impossible to fairly pay all athletes. In order to avoid problems like those exhibited by Northwestern’s football team, who recently tried to unionize, all athletes would need to be paid equally. The excitement brought on by college sports is immense, and problems created due to paying athletes would only hurt the tradition and charisma that college athletics offer. In conclusion, College athletes are students and amateurs, not employees. “Remember student comes first in student-athlete”
Sports provide a nice source of money for the college but some of the money is given to the coaches where coaches are given much more money than professors that do make an effort to teach students. The money can be potentially be used to promote more departments and of the like, but to see that coaches get paid more than professors, it makes a statement of how sports are more important than education. Colleges are made to educate students and ensure that education are the highest quality valued, but to have professors who are the basis of education being paid less than coaches. Colleges are made to enhance student’s education and should not focus too much on its sports
Considering the amount of money made annually by the athletic department, one would think that the college can give the college athletes more than just a few thousand dollars in scholarship money. Students should not be left with a medical bill due to services rendered on the field of a college team, nor should they be left penniless after giving their all to a college sport. Works Cited ESPN.com. The. " College Athletics Revenue and Expenses."
Paul Dietzel, former head coach of LSU, once said, “You can learn more character on the two-yard line than anywhere else in life.” Ever since the beginning, not only children but also college athletes have been playing sports for the love of the game and have used it as a way to grow character, teamwork, and leadership. Although when playing for a University an athletes job is to bring in profit for the school, this is not why these young men and women have continued with these sports they love. It is usually these students passion, a way for them to express themselves like others have art and music. The question has been up whether these college athletes should be paid for their loyalty and income for the University but by paying these students more than their given scholarship, it would defeat the purpose and environment of a college sport versus a professional sport, cause recruiting disputes, and affect the colleges benefits from these school athletics.
College sports are a major revenue producing industry. Athletic programs and their student-athletes can achieve national recognition and generate millions of dollars in revenue for their university. Colleges use this revenue to invest in players, pay for their education, and provide state of the art training facilities, which are used to improve their athletic performance. 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 (...
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. 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...
One of the strongest arguments against student athletes getting paid is that many people feel they already are getting paid, through their financial aid package. Sports Illustrated author, Seth Davis, states in his article “Hoop Thoughts”, that “student athletes are already being payed by earning a free tuition. Which over the course of four years can exceed $200,000, depending on the school they attend. They are also provided with housing, textbooks, food and academic tutoring. When they travel to road games, they are given per diems for meals. They also get coaching, training, game experience and media exposure in their respective crafts” (Davis, 2011). This is a considerable amount of income. While the majority of regular students are walking out of school with a sizeable amount of debt, most student athletes are debt free. Plus they get to enjoy other benefits that are not made available to the average student. They get to travel with their teams, t...
It seems to be a very popular notion to argue that college athletes should be paid just like pro athletes. College athletes put in hours on end for practice, games, and they bring in money for the school. Many fans of the sport spend money on tickets for games, merchandise, and when betting on the games. Television broadcasting alone of college sports have soared to nearly $2 billion a year (Koba, 1). The biggest argument is that college athletes should be paid because they generate so much money for the schools they represent. The amount of money big colleges bring in every year is staggering. Why shouldn’t they be compensated for their efforts when so much money is being made? And are they really making money though, or are they actually losing money? However, with most to all college athletes having their college tuition paid for, what greater reward could they ask for than a free education?
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.
The payment of NCAA student-athletes will deteriorate the value of an education to the athletes. The value of an education for a young man or woman cannot be measured. It is our gate way to success as...
College athletes juggle busy academic and practice schedules all throughout their stressful weeks, so why shouldn't they be compensated for their time dedicated to sports? NCAA rules strictly prohibits players from being paid for all the hard work they do to protect “amateurism”, but are you really an amateur putting in over 40 hours a week between practice and other activities? Although students earn a college scholarship, that doesn’t cover living expenses, and access to a degree at the end of their career, players should be paid because schools, coaching staffs and major corporations are profiting off their free labor.
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...
College athletics is a billion dollar industry and has been for a long time. Due to the increasing ratings of college athletics, this figure will continue to rise. It’s simple: bigger, faster, stronger athletes will generate more money. College Universities generate so much revenue during the year that it is only fair to the players that they get a cut. College athletes should get paid based on the university’s revenue, apparel sales, and lack of spending money.
College athletes are not forced into playing the sport that they have devoted their time to during their years in secondary education. They continue to play into the college level for their love of the game. And for this, many college athletes are offered full scholarships. Today’s tuition for many schools are so expensive that without the scholarships that some of the students receive, they would not be able to attend college at all. For these students, college sports offer a great avenue to obtain an education that otherwise would not have been available for them. This allows them opportunity to study something that they can use to build a better life for themselves and their families.
For decades there has been a debate on student athletes and their drive to succeed in the classroom. From the very beginning of organized college level athletics, the goal to want to succeed in athletics has forced students to put academics to the back burner. In spite of the goal to want to succeed over a hundred years of attempts to check limits of intercollegiate athletic programs on colleges' academic standards still seems to struggle to this day. This brings to surface one of the most asked questions in sports, “What effect does college sports have on academics and economics?” Herbert D. Simons, Derek Van Rheenen, and Martin V. Covington, authors of “Academic Motivation and the Student Athlete” researched the topic on whether athletics and academics benefit each other. Bryan Flynn, the author of “College Sports vs. Academics” poses the question “Should institutions of higher learning continue to involve themselves in athletic programs that often turn out to be virtual arms races for recruiting talented players who bring big money and prestige, but put academics to the back burner?” Although both authors agree that sports have an impact on an athlete’s academics, the focus of their argument differs.