Analysis On Why College Athletes Should Get Paid

Do you want to get paid for playing a sport in college? (http://www.experienceproject.com/question-answer.php) College players should receive some payment for playing for their schools. College athletes put their bodies on the line each game they play, paying college athletes would help to begin creating a sense of financial awareness, (https://smartasset.com/retirement/should-student-athletes-be-paid ) and some athletes don't have enough money to pay for food or stuff they need and with the money they have left over they can buy things.

College athletes should be paid. The athletes put in as much work as the people who do get paid. Why should they not be paid? There are many pros for why they should get paid, but there are also many cons on why they should not get paid. The athletes should get paid because of how hard they work in season and the off-season. Do not pay all of the athletes, but pay the ones who are at a D1 college. The athletes should get paid because they put in the same amount of time as the pros do, and the pros get paid.

”The college sports industry generates $11 billion in annual revenues.”(Case for Paying College Athletes). College athletes should get paid due to the substantial income a school makes from each game, a higher education, and more benefits for health problems.

The authors begin the article discussing the creation of the NCAA and how they came to the creation of their amateurism laws, providing a background to as to why college athletes are not allowed to receive any form of monetary payment. Johnson and Acquaviva then present five arguments as to why college athletes should not be compensated. These arguments are that athletes are being paid with their education, new issues would arise with fair pay if college athletes were compensated, college athletes are receiving more than just an education, paying college athletes would eliminate competition, and that college athletes already know what to expect when they sign to play for a university. The authors then provide counter arguments that help to prove that college athletes should be paid for their play. These are that the cost of living is not covered in college scholarships, college athletes don’t understand that they will be set aside if they are injured or benched, and college athletes do not receive more than an education due to their full schedules. The authors then explain some of the plans that could help to fairly compensate college athletes, such as allowing them to receive endorsement deals. Finally, Johnson and

In conclusion, college athletes deserve to be paid for what they do. College athletes are dedicated to their sports. They are doing this to make a living, also to get an education. They have wants and needs. They deserve to be

College athletes are taken advantage of on a daily basis. Student athletes have to spend all day in class having to meet vigorous academic requirements well also having to stay competitive in sports. For doing so much you think the NCAA would at least give them some money to live off. When students have no money they are more likely to sell their autographs or take money from boosters. When students accept money from boosters it not only affects the player but it affects the team. Some ways that it affects the whole team is by reducing the amount of scholarships a team can give out that year. It could also affect their college playoff hopes by not allowing them to participate in their college bowl games.

A very long debate in college sports is if the athletes should be paid. Author Jared Walch, talks about both sides of the issue, but later in the article it seems he sides with the argument that they should be paid. In the beginning of the article, he talks about why the athletes shouldn’t be paid. Walch first argues that this is all a choice for the athletes. They choose to put themselves in harms way of possible injury and not every athlete gets injured. Another argument that the author discusses is how to pay the athletes. Who pays the athletes and how do you distribute the money? The two programs to bring in the most money are football and men’s basketball. Women’s golf athletes are still college athletes. So even though they don’t make as much money, will they still be paid? Most athletes are already at school for scholarships. If you already have everything paid for by the university, what more would you need paid for? The author later goes into the morality and how paying the athletes would take away some of the entertainment of watching college athletes play. Towards the end of his article, Walch

How have sports changed to the point where there is serious discussion around paying college athletes? Universities and athletic coaches make millions on the backs of their players. So the question is, are our college athletes properly compensated? After reading both articles by Paul Marx and Warren Hartenstine I have come to the conclusion that college athletes should not be compensated beyond their athletic scholarships. Many students are fully compensated for tuition, room and board, books and private tutors. These services are valuable in countless ways. They allow students to pursue both their athletic and academic dreams. Further compensating college athletes would lead to an unfair advantage and is unjust to other students.

Most institutions absorb significant losses each year in order to provide their student-athletes a venue to participate and compete in the sports that they love as they progress toward their ultimate goals of obtaining their college degrees. We should not take this sacrifice by our colleges and universities for granted. Proponents of paying college athletes present their own arguments for their position. Their arguments focus primarily on the monetary aspects of this “business” (United States Sports

Cody Kessler is the quarterback for The University of Southern California and he is the face of that school. They sell his jersey number, posters of his face and even just his name draws attention the school. Fortunately for Cody he has a good chance to play professional football but others might not be so lucky (He). There are many athletes at their school who can draw in a profit and still get nothing in return and it is time for a change. Although college athletes are not professionals, they should be paid for their contributions.

College football players should get paid because of their dedication and because it would increase the competitiveness of the sport.

College athletics are a part of everyone’s lives in some form whether it be watching ones favorite team or cheering on friends and family members. This is especially true in the US. These college athletes are taken for granted while they are playing this sport at a competitive level and also maintaining the academic qualifications required because many don’t understand or realize the time and effort these athletes put into their career. Therefore, college athletes should be paid for playing sports during their college career.

There are positive and negative sides to paying college athletes, but when it comes down to a solution. I think college athletes should not be paid. They do deserve some benefits but paying them is too much. Anyways it would be unfair to other student athletes and non- student athletes. If they do get paid it is going to have a cause and effect domino. It would cut other academic programs, it would cut other sports for some of the smaller colleges. It makes a really big impact on not paying athletes because they are still amateur athletes that are playing for an institution versus playing professional where there are playing for money and not there for education, which these athletes playing for their school they are there for an education