Analytical Literary Review

In The Washington Post Sally Jenkins writes a column titled “rather than pay athletes, show them respect”. Jenkins talks about the age old question of “should college athletes be paid?”. She wants us to consider who college athletes really are and to see that they are worth our respect and much more.

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

College sports are one of the largest and fastest growing markets in today’s culture. With some college sports games attracting more viewers than their professional counterparts, the NCAA is one of the most profiting organizations in America. Recently there has been controversy in the world of college sports as to whether the college athletes that are making their universities and the NCAA money should receive payment while they are playing their respective sport. Many believe that these athletes should be paid. Others argue that they are already receiving numerous benefits for playing that sport from their universities. Many of the proponents of paying college athletes are current or former college athletes who believe their hard work and hours put into practice and competing go under appreciated. They feel that while the athletes are making the university money, the athletes do not receive any cut of these profits. Opponents feel that athletes already receive numerous perks and should not receive extra compensation on top of the perks they already receive.

College athletic programs are among the most popular sporting events in America. With this rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue in recent years. In 2014, the NCAA made over 900 million dollars in revenue. Some collegiate coaches, such as Kentucky’s John Calipari, have yearly salaries in the millions, not counting incentives and endorsement deals. While, clearly, money is being made, NCAA regulations ban collegiate athletes from being paid. Many question this rule and argue that athletes at the college level earn and deserve pay for play. The debate to pay or not to pay college athletes rages on despite the latest court ruling supporting NCAA policies. Because colleges and universities earn such a profit from sporting events, many fans feel it is only fair to distribute some of the wealth to the players. Supporters of paying student athletes feel that these young men and women should be fairly compensated for the time demanded of the athletes and the stress put on the athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Those in favor of paying college athletes contend that athletic and academic work ethic at both high school and collegiate levels will improve, as well as, fiscal responsibility in these young adults. The NCAA argues that paying athletes would negatively affect their

For about a decade, the debate between whether collegiate athletes should be paid while playing has been contemplated. Now, the focus has moved from all sports to two specific areas, football and men’s basketball. Sprouting from many court cases filed against the NCAA to some ugly sandals dealing with the athletes themselves. In the 2010 – 2011 time frame, this controversy really sparked up chatter; eventually leading the current pled for sport reformation. Our student athletes are the ones who are at the expense here stuck in between this large argument. Over the past 10 years, there has been minor things done for either side and the players themselves have started taking things into their own hands. The year 2010 a total of 7 student

Throughout my paper I will demonstrate many different ideas on whether college athletes should get paid why they should not. I will talk about the things paying the athletes will do for the NCAA, how it is unfair for athletes to be used and not get anything out of those moments, and they generate revenue for the NCAA just on certain players presence. I will also talk about why college athletes should not get paid. They

The question of whether or not college athletes should get paid is of heated debate in todays times. While many believe that student athletes are entitled to income, It remains undougtibly a concern of moral interest to universities across the country. This paper is going to explain the pros and cons that come with allowing student athletes the right to receive a salary.

In the op-ed “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid,” written by Warren Hartenstine analyzes the issue on college football players being paid for their performance on the field. This op-ed article was published in The Baltimore Sun, which is a major newspaper in Maryland. Warren Hartenstine was an assistant dean at a large East Coast school and was playing Division I football while attending one of the Big Ten institutions. While playing football he was also very involved in extracurricular activities with school, such as being in a fraternity, Kappa Sigma. Warren Hartenstine was involved in his school and the schooling system majorly, he believes in having self discipline and dual success in a student’s favorite institution and their higher education.

Howard Chudacoff raises the controversial question of whether or not college athletes should be paid during a time of the year when people are most focused on college athletics, March Madness. Chudacoff is a firm believer that college athletes are given enough amenities as it is and do not deserve extra compensation or paychecks. His main arguments to support his position revolve around the royalties that power five athletes receive in regards to education centers, training facilities, and the fact that these players receive a free education. Chudacoff paints the picture of these facilities throughout his article and appeals to the reader’s pathos by descriptively showing the reader how college athletes really do live like millionaires.

Day in and day out college athletes work endlessly in practice, school and work without any type of reward. Over the past couple of decades universities have attempted to get the NCAA to allow these universities to give student athletes some type of money for their work and dedication. In John Nocera’s NY Times article, “A Way to Start Paying College Athletes,” he uses strong logical reasoning and credible sources to effectively educate his audience. However, he drastically changes his tone when discussing certain ideas, by indirectly calling out those who do not believe in his way of paying college athletes.

In “Why N.C.A.A Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid” originally published in 2015 in The New Yorker, Professor of Law at Cardozo School of Law, Ekow N. Yankah contends paying College athletes is a “grave mistake” and fails to “recognize the value of sports as a part of education.” In addition, Yankah argues that we should direct elite programs away from exploiting young black athletes but instead encourage intellectual discovery while participating in NCAA sports. Furthermore, the popularity of college athletics can be contributed to the fact that NCAA athletes are students, therefore, more relatable to their professional counterparts. Additionally, Yankah believes paying athletes would diminish the value of academic quality, tradition,

Marc Edelman is primarily a man of sports. He often writes about legal issues pertaining to sports. The purpose of the article, published on January 6, 2014, is for Edelman to express how much he disagrees with not paying college athletes, and why is it a selfish act for those arguing against the pay of college athletes. The audience od this article can be intended for those that are, in fact, a college athlete and their families, or someone that wants to be more informed of where the money goes in college sports world.

In trying to decide what research topic I wanted to use, I took many ideas into thought. I decided that the one idea that interests me most is whether student athletes should be paid or not. This is very intriguing to me since my master’s program is sports management. In order to do this research there must be many ways to use research as well as ideas from other people. This project is a very big topic in today’s discussion amongst sport fans, college administrators, and student athletes themselves. Media has recently put more pressure on this topic as well with the Northwestern decision to unionize as well as pointing out an athletic director gaining an $18,000 supplement for a wrestler at their school winning a national

A heated debate has been raging over the issue of whether or not collegiate athletes should or should not be compensated for their performance in their respective sports. This issue is of great importance because the NCAA’s (National College Athletics Association) model is based upon amateurism, and the disruption of this model could be the end of collegiate athletics as we know it. The basis of this argument is a pro/con argument between the parties that support the compensation of collegiate athletes and those who oppose it. This means that the argument in question is not one about should they or should they not be paid, it could be argued that the argument is about which side is making a better argument. The primary stakeholders of this argument are the athletes themselves, the parents of these athletes, the athletic coaching staff, the NCAA, and fans of college athletics. Malcolm Lemmons writes in his Huffington Post article, “there has been obvious speculation about college athletes and the significant amount of revenue they have been bringing to their schools and the NCAA” (Lemmons, 2017). This means that a major argument is over should they be compensated for their hard work that they put into generating revenue for their schools. This is not a multifaceted argument, one side seems to be in agreeance that yes, they should, because the universities are using their name and image for free, the opposite side seems to also be in agreeance they no, they should not,

After reading several literary reviews from different reputable online sources, I developed many mixed reviews and thoughts with regards to their comments. Cormier was one of the founding fathers of modern young-adult literature, adding many new literary approaches other writers failed to incorporate. The New York Times quotes , Critics admired ''The Chocolate War.'' Writing for The New York Times Book Review, the novelist Theodore Weesner called it'' masterfully structured and rich in theme.'' More than a decade later, an interviewer for The New York Times Book Review asked Mr. Cormier if in such books he was ''sending a depressing message that even savvy teenagers can't possibly outwit or buck 'the system’.” Mr. Cormier replied, ''They