Analysis: Why College Athletes Should Be Paid

The NCAA does not allow athletes to make any type of money. For example, Donald De La Haye, was a kicker for UCF who was ruled ineligible for making money off YouTube. The NCAA may want to pay every single athlete, but that is not possible considering the amount of college students play sports. The NCAA is a $11 Billion Industry that makes money off of these players by having televised games that NCAA would make money. This is especially emphasized during March Madness or the College Football Playoffs. Fans will also come to see the games which the money made with seating will go to the NCAA. Coaches get paid millions of dollars per year while players receive nothing for putting their bodies on the line. For example, Mike Krzyzewski, who is the basketball coach for Duke University, is being paid $7.2 million per year. Being a college athlete is like a full time job. Each athlete trains and practices trying to get to the professionals and make a living. Some athletes don’t really pay attention in class where they could be learning valuable

In the sports world you hear the question, should college athletes really get paid? If you read the articles by sports writers, for ESPN and Fox Sports, you hear both sides of the story. One person at ESPN, Michael Wilbon, believes that college athletes deserve to get paid, and here is his reason why “We’re talking $11 billion for three weekends of television per year. On top of that there’s a four-year contract with ESPN that pays the BCS* $500 million, and combined that’s $10 billion, would the games not be televised?” “As Jon Solomon, from CBS Sports pointed out, the NCAA* went to court to settle the debate, should college athletes, in football and basketball, get paid for their image, names and likeliness?”.

As Forbes' Chris Smith wrote,” Athletic conferences receive millions of dollars in payouts from the NCAA when their teams advance deep into the tournament. Ditto for the coaches of the final squads standing. The NCAA, as a whole, makes $6 billion annually.” But the players themselves don’t see any of that money. The huge amount of money being made off of college sports has raised some questions as to whether these student athletes should be considered “amateurs”, whether they should, and also if they should be paid for their efforts and commitment.to not only the sport but school also. “A group of former players has filed an antitrust lawsuit alleging that student athletes are entitled to some of the money the NCAA makes off of using their names and likenesses on merchandise such as jerseys and video games.”- US

The sad thing is that college athletes are being sold as entertainers but will never see any of the money that is being made off of them. “The NCAA just announced a 14 year 11 billion dollar deal for Men’s basketball.”(O’Toole 2010). So when stars like Oregon’s quarterback Marcus Mariota is breaking touchdown records and risking throwing out his arm or getting hit from behind and tearing his ACL. When a quarterback throws out his arm his career is likely over. Or when Adrian Payne played for the Michigan state Spartans cuts to the rim and breaks his fibula. Once a basketball player hurts something in his leg his body will never be the same. The player won’t be able to dunk or every shoot the same again. But it’s ok to not pay them because they get to go to school for free and if they will be fine. The NCAA doesn’t care if the students receive that money for that the NCAA is greedy. Year in and year out this is going to keep happening if we don’t make a change about it. It’s going to take someone in a high up place in the NCAA to say something about it for something to happen. But they don’t care if players lose everything because the NCAA still makes their money when a better player comes along and stills the show. The NCAA should offer protection because only 2 percent of college football players actually make it in the

College athletes should be paid monetarily as well as with scholarships. Colleges are benefiting of big time players by selling their jerseys without their names on it to avoid paying the athletes but the NCAA looked silly “when Jay Bilas, a veteran ESPN analyst, former Duke basketball player and vocal critic of the NCAA, took to Twitter to point out that although schools cannot sell a player's jersey with his name on the back, if you typed Manziel into a search box on ShopNCAASports.com a No. 2 Texas A&M jersey pops up, available for up to $64.95. (Manziel wears No. 2.) (Davis).”Since college athletes can not get sponsorships their name can’t be on the jerseys that are sold to the fans even though you could still find their jersey by looking

1 Often, in the world of college athletics, it comes down to all or nothing. You either win or lose. For the winning teams at top-notch programs, Alabama in college football and Duke in college basketball, for example, the reward for winning is millions of dollars of revenue. It is because of these programs and other top-notch programs in the premier athletic conferences, that makes the NCAA, the largest collegiate athletic governing body, a billion dollar industry. (Why College Athletes Should Be Paid).

One reason for this is that there are many obstacles that evolve once we start paying college athletes. An example of one of these obstacles would be that not all institutions would have the financial capabilities that big name schools such as Clemson, Oklahoma, as well as USC. Furthermore, how would schools such as Indiana State, Marshall, or Western Michigan be able to provide equal salaries to their players in comparison to Top 25 teams? (Reed, 2016). Another obstacle would be paying all NCAA athletes, it is no doubt that football and basketball generate much more revenue than sports such as swimming, golf, as well as baseball. The only way to solve that would be creating a national plan that all institutions and sports would have to follow. The Huffington Post made an argument and posted a possible solution by stating, “let athletes benefit from their fame and likeness”, and “If the local auto parts store wants to pay a college athlete to sign autographs for two hours during a store sale, why shouldn’t the athlete be allowed to take that opportunity?” (Reed, 2016). The article also went on and made the comparison between coach and athlete. NCAA coaches are allowed to accept endorsement money, therefore that should not differentiate when it comes to the coaches’ athletes. Another argument that The Huffington Post made was that, “Music students in college are free to accept cash or gifts for playing a weekend gig at the local club. What makes athletes different?” (Reed, 2016). The purpose of this argument being made is that students involved in activities other than those sports connected to the NCAA are allowed to profit from their skills and talents while athletes are

For centuries the world has been playing a variety of sports and more recently we have adopted a college lifestyle for the subject. The athletes dedicate their lives and sometimes bodies for the sport, all just for a chance to make it to the next level. Why risk your body and education for a chance of making it big, these special individuals completely throw the danger out the window and risk it all for the entertainment of the fan base, according to the source ‘Should college Athletes Be Paid?” in Upfront magazine the author Joe Nocera says” College football and basketball are multibillion-dollar businesses. They have billion

Nearly $1 billion dollars is what the NCAA made in 2014 off of sports events and merchandise, and they still will not provide the players with an income. Some say that given the player an education is enough, but it's not anymore because they are making too much money off theses players. Paying college athletes is the right thing to do because it is their money that is being collected, if a player is hurt during a college game then it could make it to where they can’t play professional, or they should be able to take endorsement deals.

Is there any good reason why college athletes should not be paid for their ability? Great inquiry. Some individuals argue school players are being paid; it’s known as a grant or scholarship (Cooper 1.) Others argue that a full grant doesn't cover everything a customary school understudy needs (Schneider 3, Majerol 2.) Every single sentiment had great focuses.

Furthermore, top players gain exposure that will land in endorsements and contracts when they go pro. The problem is that only top players will have their careers taking off. What happens to the other athletes who have dedicated their time and effort to the sport? There are just too many athletes, and not everyone will get a contract. Therefore, to make sure that players have some form of income, the NCAA should pay the athletes a certain amount of money.

Have you ever done a job that you didn't get paid for? This is exactly what college athletes go through. They play their sport and bring thing the university millions in revenue but don't receive a dime. Although college athletes receive full scholarships, they should be paid because if it wasn't for them the university wouldn't make any money, so the people generating it should receive a portion.

College athletics are incredibly popular today. College athletics bring great things to colleges around the United States. However, there have been problems that come with college athletics. There has been a huge discussion lately over if college athletes should be paid. College athletes put a lot of effort into their sport, earn money for their school, and skip many days of school. However, some of the lesser sports don't earn the big money that some sports make for the school, athletes would all pick one school depending on the salary they earn, and colleges already provide full scholarships towards students.

What would make a college athlete eligible to receive payment for playing any sport? Would they have to play a sport that brings in plenty of revenue to the school? I conducted a survey asking several people around campus the same question, “Do you think college athletes should be paid for their performances?” Some of the interviewees said yes, because network and advertisements profit from them, the threatening conditions their bodies endure, and the amount of time and energy it takes to be a student-athlete. Some interviewees said no, because it is not their career and the athlete chose to play the sport, most athletes are already being compensated for their performances, and a lot of athletes receive an enormous amount in refund, so

Imagine you are a college athlete. You have worked hard throughout your life to get to where you are today, a Division I college athlete. However, the grind doesn’t stop there. You still have to put in about 40 hours each week on your sport, attend mandatory team workouts and meetings, and travel and compete for your school. Not to mention you still have difficult college classes, sleep, and your social life to worry about. You are well aware of the sacrifices you have to make, but your school? Now that’s another story. They require you to hold a certain GPA and play well enough to keep your hard-earned scholarship, and when you do well on the field, no matter how many awards you win, the school gets the ultimate prize: Money. Yes, college athletes receive scholarships, which do cover a good amount of the cost of college. However, do they cover textbooks and meal plans and other numerous expenses? Former NCAA basketball Final Four MVP Shabazz Napier said “ there are hungry nights that I go to bed and I’m starving”. If this doesn’t tell the NCAA that something is wrong, what will? I strongly believe that NCAA Division I athletes should be paid a certain amount of money because they make money for the NCAA. Therefore, they should be treated like any other paid employee and receive fair compensation. Not paying the athletes is likely an antitrust violation and also morally wrong.