Paying College Athletes
Since 1957, student athletes have been given scholarships to further their career in the sport that they excel in. During the late 1970’s, college basketball became more popular and more profitable. ("Paying College Athletes"). The controversy surrounding student athletes revolves around financial compensation specifically concerning the position that college student athletes should either be paid, not paid, or paid via scholarship.
The supporters believe that student athletes should get paid. The National College Athletic Association (NCAA) brings in a lot of revenue, some believe that the student athletes should get a fair share of that revenue. ESPN basketball analyst and former player Jay Bilas argues, "The NCAA and the schools are making money off of the names and likenesses of the players, and the players are being cut totally out of it. To me it's pretty simple analysis." ("Paying College Athletes"). According to the article “Paying College Athletes: Should the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) pay college athletes?” in 2009 the top earning school was University of Louisville with their revenue at $25,494,904, expenses at $8,625,245, and their profit being $16,869,659. Supporters of athletes believe that this is one of the very few times where people are helping an organization bring in money that then don’t see any in return. Boyce Watkins, a finance professor at Syracuse University in upstate New York, said, “If what you do
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
Should college student-athletes be paid has become a much debated topic. The incentive for a student-athlete to play a college sport should not be for money, but for the love of the game. It has been argued that colleges are making money and therefore the student-athlete should be compensated. When contemplating college income from sporting events and memorabilia from popular sports, such as football and basketball, it must not be forgotten that colleges do incur tremendous expense for all their sports programs. If income from sports is the driving factor to pay student-athletes, several major problems arise from such a decision. One problem is who gets a salary and the second problem is how much should they be paid. Also, if the income
Imagine a business that was bringing in millions of dollars every year in revenue solely off the employees, and the individuals who are working to bring in the money, do not see a cent of it. This is essentially how college athletes feel at their respective universities. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is seeing $11 billion dollars in revenue come through their doors annually, and not one penny goes back to the student athletes who, in reality, create that money. The money is passed down through the executives, directors and coaches, but none is given to the players. With putting in an average to 43 hours per week, which is more than the average work week, student athletes can be compared to
Whether or not student-athletes should be paid has been a hotly debated topic since the 1900s. College athletes spend just as much time, if not more time, practicing and devoting time and energy to sports as they do academics. For this, many athletes are rewarded with scholarship money. However, many people believe it is not enough. Should we pay student-athletes a slice of the wealth or is a full-ride scholarship enough? (Business Insider). What if the athlete gets injured? Where does the money come out of to support each athlete’s salary? The huge amount of money being generated from college sports has led some people to think that the athletes are entitled to some of that revenue. While, some think that student-athletes should be paid, others disagree for various reasons.
College athletics are becoming more like the professional leagues except for one big issue, money. Student athletes bring in a vast amount of revenue for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) not to mention recognition and notoriety regarding the athlete’s university. However, the debate continues as to whether student athletes should or should not receive payment for playing college sports.
Due to National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules and regulations no college athlete is able to receive any compensation or endorsement while participating in college athletics. These rules have long been challenged, however no changes have been made by the NCAA. With universities grossing close to $200 million a year college athletics has turned into one of the top industries in the world. The NCAA is a governing body of college athletics, but without people questioning the NCAA and demanding changes to the monopoly that the NCAA is nothing will happen to the unfairness to college athletes like it is currently.
LeBron James makes 19.07 million dollars a year, Kobe Bryant makes 30.45 million a year, Peyton Manning makes 18 million dollars a year, the average college athlete makes no money at all. Why do college athletes that put in just as much work get paid differently? This is the way many people feel about NCAA's decision to not pay college athletes. There are always people who think teams should pay their athletes but there are just as many who people who disagree. Paying college athletes continues to be a huge debate in the sports world there are pros and cons for both and both need to be considered in the big decision that the NCAA has to make.
There is currently a major issue in today’s college athletics. Universities and the NCAA make billions of dollars while some student-athletes go hungry. There is a huge debate over whether or not student-athletes should be paid as employees of their respective colleges. Personally, I don’t believe players should receive full-time salaries, but Universities and the NCAA should be required to increase the value of the scholarships that they award to student-athletes. By requiring that colleges provide athletes with an additional $2,000 per semester as part of their scholarship you can greatly increase the well-being (welfare) of the students.
(Attention Getter) What if I told you that for decades, students have worked over 40 hours a week and received absolutely no pay. College athletes are expected to balance the immense workload of school work and represent their school well in athletics.
There has been a constant debate the past few years on whether college athletes, particularly football players, should get paid. In 1988, the Nebraska legislature passed a bill that would allow the University of Nebraska football players to receive better cash incentives. The bill was later vetoed by Governor Kay Orr, who was governor of Nebraska at the time (O’Toole etal. 2). . The dispute comes from coaches, parents of the players, and the players themselves arguing that universities make money off their own athletes and the athletes, in turn, do not receive any money from that. Many NCAA officials disagree stating their case that college athletes already receive
College athletics assume a large role in the entertainment industry of America. Each week, millions of people tune in to watch their favorite team, buy tickets to go to the games, or spend money on university athletic merchandise to show their pride. The NCAA and universities benefit enormously from college sports. The top 10 total revenues generated by universities were all well over the $100,000,000 mark in 2012 (“College Finances 2012”). The University of Texas tops the list with $163,295,115 total revenue from athletics (“College Finances 2012”). Last football season, Texas A&M University quarterback Johnny Manziel won the Heisman Trophy. As the first freshman to ever win the trophy, he propagated over 1.8 million media impressions which translated to $37 million of media exposure (Cook). The University’s licensing revenue jumped 23% this past year due to the success of one player (Cook). The NCAA itself generated $871,600,000 in revenue from the championship games (“College Finances 2012”). All of this revenue is impossible without the student-athletes. The NCAA is strict on making sure that athletes should be treated no different from any other student (Blias). However, the athletes are involved in a heavily commercialized multi-billion dollar industry. As amateurs, athletes remain restricted solely to scholarships as the only form
One of the most controversial subjects we as individuals hear about this day in age is whether or not college athletes deserve to be paid. Many people argue that these athletes do intact, deserve to be paid for their time and hard work. NCAA athletes create a name for themselves by playing and performing well on their college teams. The better these athletes perform, the more publicity the school revives. This then leads to higher ticket sales and stores around campus selling jerseys and other clothing items with athletes names and numbers on the back. NCAA schools have become comfortable with using athletes’ names to bring in a revenue for the school, and yet the athletes never see any of that money. On the other hand, many people believe that these athletes do not deserve, nor should they expect to receive payment in return. They believe that these scholarships and the education are payment in itself. Some even bring up the question on if it is affordable or even realistic to pay college athletes.
There have been ongoing arguments over the past decade of whether or not college athletes should be paid to play. Many argue that they do not have time to get real jobs because the requirements for the sport that they participate in are far too demanding. Others cite that these athletes are provided full scholarships to attend the schools at which they are playing the sport. However regardless of the argument, I still feel that college athletes should NOT be paid to play.
Is an athletic scholarship really enough of a “payment” to reimburse athletes for the billions of dollars made by the NCAA every year? This issue of paying collegiate athletes, especially football and basketball players, has been around for many years. Athletes, students, bystanders, and NCAA analysts and authority figures have a strong opinion about paying college athletes. Whether college athletes should be paid or not is a debate topic that is more prevalent today than ever.
Your dream has come true; you're at college playing the sport you love, and at what cost? None. You are free to live your college life worry free and have been given the opportunity to continue your sports career. After you have completed your college education you can get a job, with no college loans that you have to pay off. You are also able to start making money right out of graduation. You get to experience this less stressful college life. The lives of athletes that walk-on and athletes not on a scholarship are stressful ones with many different things to worry about. Those athletes have to worry about how to pay for college and the loans they will have to pay back after graduation. They will have to pay for all their meals, books and the cost for dorms. But what got you here? There were many factors, but one that helped you the most was that you were a diverse athlete.