Argument for Paying College Athletes

Player’s compensation will not only, help competitors with their college necessities, but for outside food, college events, and activities. Keep in mind, some of these College athletes weren’t born with a silver spoon in their mouths; they are coming from less fortunate families. The point is a scholarship doesn’t equal the same amount of cash. Even with any type of scholarship given, college athletes are essentially broke. But on the other hand, take a second, to ponder about how much funds NCAA executives are producing off of these amateur athletes. Mark Emmert, the CEO of the NCAA has a compensation of forty-five percent is and an increase pay raise with higher insurance cost, nearly making a billion dollar per year. While the CBS Network,

For over a decade, there has been an ongoing debate for and against paying college athletes. Those in favor quickly point out the benefits to players. Those against this practice concentrate on the possible detriment to both the educational and athletic systems currently in place at institutions of higher learning. Merit can be found in both arguments; however, the changes that would be necessary to put the payment practice into place would take years to implement.

A college education is the most valuable education that most only dream of, a dream not made reality due to not being financially fit to pay for college. Instead of paying full tuition, students are able to pay for college with an athletic scholarship. Whether it be a full ride or the scholarship paying part of it students can play sports while their studies are being covered. But a scholarship doesn't cover necessities like living, food, and travel expenses, but the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) overlooks the problem that college athletes face everyday. “The governing body of big-time college sports, the NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic Association], is caught in a huge contradiction—trying to reconcile a multibillion-dollar industry while claiming it is really an amateur activity. That it is a huge money making industry is beyond dispute” (Stanley).

We often forget that playing a sport is not the only way to earn a scholarship. Many students are accepted for exceptional grades, involvement in the band, clubs, or being well rounded. Most of these students just have to study to keep their scholarship, while the athletes have to work hard and be a student. In a competitive market, “workers” are paid according to the value of the output they produce (Heath). It does not seem right that the college journalist can sell their piece to a paper for extra cash, or the local band can play for a few dollars at the bar Saturday night, or the biology major that takes an internship at the school lab can be profitable yet college athletes cannot. Under the NCAA they are not allowed to make any money of their skill. Any college student should be able to endorse products (Wilbon). This is why the idea of going to school for free should not be an argument against paying athletes, because that is not the case and they have earned it.

Colleges bring an incredible amount of money by their sport teams alones. According to John Brill, a sports journalist writer, “College football and basketball generate more than the National Basketball Association, a total of more than $6 billion yearly.” The money made from these sporting events are not being used correctly which is frustrating many college athletes. The money that is being

The System for college athletes isnt perfect, and needs to be worked on, a big problem we cannot seem to agree is how to compensate the student-athletes who drive the NCAA. I would like to start off with a question. Are college athletes being compensated enough for the effort they put forth today? Every Day they wake up early and represent their university whether they are putting in work in class or on the field. Each student-student athlete generates tons of money for their university and they don’t see a dime other than their scholarship that may or may not been renewed every year. Keep that question in mind while reading this essay, and form your own opinion.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) makes roughly $1 billion in income annually and the athletes do not receive any of it. This topic has been debated for many years and is still being debated. The debate dates back to the 1980s and now athletes are demanding that they deserve to be paid since profits are made off of them. Some athletes such as former and current basketball and football players came together with lawsuits to federal courts asking for rewards from profits NCAA makes gets of them. Research has opened several different opinions on this matter. There are many pros and cons for paying college athletes. College sports provide a huge source of the university’s income. The athletes, however, receive their scholarship

How much harder would athletes work if they were paid for their performance on the field, track, or court? College athletes are put to the test each and everyday, they risk their health to entertain millions day in and day out. College athletes deserve part of the money due to the revenue they bring in for their schools and for the NCAA, they deserve the money because they do not have time to get a job because they are practicing and training at least 40 hours a week, they should also get paid because they are used as marketing models for the ncaa and for their universities. College athletes also should not get paid because they are already getting paid in scholarship money. College athletes deserve to get paid because they are putting their bodies on the line just so the NCAA and their sponsors can make money.

After numerous scandals over the past several years of college athletes receiving improper benefits, the question has come up whether or not college athletes should be paid or not. College sports are a growing industry, and we have seen money destroy organizations, teams, and players in this industry.  The determination and motivation of college athletes supersedes professional athletes by their will to win; therefore, college athletes should not be paid.

The argument of paying college athletes outside of the scholarships they may be receiving is becoming a rather popular topic. “Should College Athletes Be Paid?”, an article in Santa Clara Law written by Ron Katz, Isac Vaughn and Mike Gilleran weighs both sides of paying student athletes. They argue the point that regardless how you look at the situation, a handful of college sports have become a business. Sports such as Men’s football and basketball being broadcast on television now generate approximately $750 per year for colleges. It is acknowledged that the ones who are bringing in this money (the student athletes) are not receiving revenue from the sport they are playing. The idea of treating all sports the same was possible back in the day but today you cannot deny that one sport may bring in much more than another. Therefore Gilleran et. al. concludes that each school should be able to choose if they want to start using the business idea and paying the athletes for their work. “Alabama head coach, Nick Saban’s contract extension calls for him to make $45 million over the next eight years. His players, on the other hand, receive only the NCAA scholarships that does not even cover their basic living expenses.” (Gilleran et. al. par. 27) How is it that

College sports are big money makers now a days. For most universities, the athletic department serves as one of the main sources of cash flow. Athletes are used to create millions of dollars for the NCAA and the schools that they participate in, and never receive a penny. If we are talking about profit, if all bonds with the university were removed, an athletic department representing itself could compete with some of the most successful companies. So, why does the most important parts of the machine, the players, do not receive any money for their training and participation? The answer lies in the NCAA which keeps all the money and their practice of keeping all the revenue for future use. College athletes should be paid for their

While I disagree with Wilbon’s reasons why athletes should be paid, I find his reasoning that the NCAA should be paying them absurd. Wilbon argues that the NCAA is so greedy and selfish because they make all this money and essentially don’t pay their employees (the athletes). When looking at it from afar, this can appear to be right, and Wilbon persuades the reader by emphasizing the $774 million made from the college basketball tournament, March Madness last year and the $175 million made from 5 of the college football bowl games. However, these are the only two substantial money contributors to the NCAA funds. When all this money is collected, the NCAA distributes their revenues as follows, 60% to Division 1 schools, 19% to services and programs dedicated to the athletes, 13% to the championship events, and 4% for other services like the Eligibility Center. If you do the math, that leaves 4% for the NCAA to run their headquarters and pay their own employees. To me that’s not selfish at all and they help the schools out more than enough with the money they give them and the services they provide them (“Distribution Money”).

One of the most popular pastimes in America is watching college sports. Whether it’s football, baseball, or basketball, these student-athletes bring fans, money, and sponsorships to their schools. So why shouldn't these athletes be paid? The answer is that student-athletes should not be paid, because they have the ability to earn scholarships or financial aid, college athletes are paid in other ways than financially, and not all schools have the money to pay them. Ultimately, paying college athletes would ruin the current culture and competitiveness of college sports.

As the final four comes to a close and the two champions are presented with their trophies, the real winners in some people’s eyes are the sponsors, advertisers, the schools, and finally the NCAA. All of these groups are the ones who end up with the money generated as a result of the games in the tournament and college athletes who particiapte. “The NCAA basketball tournaments, or "March Madness," have become a huge business. As Forbes' Chris Smith wrote, CBS and Turner Broadcasting make more than $1 billion off the games” (US News- Forbes’ Chris Smith). Smith’s statement shows how much money these athletes’ skills and contributions are generating. In return for giving their efforts and producing all this money, the student athletes do not receive any of these proceeds. People think college athletes should also be paid because of the money the NCAA makes off using these athletes names and likeness, like jerseys with an athlete’s number being sold and even in video games being played. Because of this, a group of former players filed an

College sports are big business. For many universities, the athletic program serves as a cash-generating machine. Exploited athletes generate millions of dollars for the NCAA and their schools, and never see a dime. In terms of profit, if all ties with the university were eliminated, an athletic program acting as its own separate entity could compete with some fortune 500 companies. So, why do the vital pieces of the machine, the players, fail to receive any compensation for their performance? The answer lies in the money-hungry NCAA and their practice of hoarding all the revenue. College athletes should receive payment for their play to make their college experience more bearable because they create huge profits and