Athlete Compensation
The idea of paying college athletes has been an ongoing debate since the early 1900s. With current television revenue resulting from NCAA football bowl games and March Madness in basketball, there is now a commotion for compensating both football and basketball players beyond that of an athletic scholarship. Because of the title “Student-athlete”, college athletes have the obligation to be a student first, and an athlete second and should not be paid to play.
There have been ongoing arguments for the past decade of whether or not college athletes should be paid to play. Many argue that they do not have the time to get real jobs because the requirements for the sports that they participate in are far too
…show more content…
But frankly, the details of this agreement are well known by all involved, and rather strangely, no one seems to mind when signing them.
Throughout the history of the NCAA, college athletes have always, in some way, received compensation beyond that of a full college scholarship (e.g., room and board, tuition, books). While such compensation is illegal, athletes like Reggie Bush and others receive under-the-table benefits as evidenced in the Slack survey (Sack). The public knows that this is happening, the other non-athlete students of the college know that it is happening, but if your team is doing goo people tend to just turn a blind eye. Aside of compensation, these athletes receive special attention and privileges from the school staff. Privileges that non-athlete students would not get, such as later due dates on assignments, extra help on work, or just exempting them from a project or assignment all together. Then adding on a dollar amount compensation to that would just add to the frustration that non-student-athletes feel.
Additionally, many athletes in “big time” programs do not receive a degree for their efforts in the athletic arena. Universities routinely admit students who are strong
Quintero 6 athletically but weak academically. As studies show, many athletes that aspire to be academically successful soon lose
College athletes should be paid because of the hard work, dedication and effort they put into their respective sports. These athletes are a major source of income for their schools and they are not receiving a penny for it. These college athletes deserved to be paid, colleges are using these athletes to get money and they are never given anything but a pat on the back and a good job. College athletes work and train extremely hard to perform at the highest level possible. In most cases, they spend more time training and preparing for their sport than they actually do learning and studying. They put so much on the line to play and they get nothing in return. These college athletes literally make their schools millions of dollars every
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
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
If they got a scholarship their school is already paid for saving them a lot of money; (http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-college-athletes-be-paid) they should only be paid for autographs. college Athletes receive plenty of other gratuities. "In my opinion, college athletes do not deserve to be paid for playing sports. They receive lots of money in scholarships and don't have to pay anything for college. There is no doubt that these athletes do wonders in monetary numbers for their schools, but if they were to be paid, then they would have to pay the kids that walk on to the team as well." (http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-college-athletes-be-paid)
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.
With the universities pulling in more than twelve billion dollars, the rate of growth for college athletics surpasses companies like McDonalds and Chevron (Finkel, 2013). The athletes claim they are making all the money, but do not see a dime of this revenue. The age-old notion that the collegiate athletes are amateurs and students, binds them into not being paid by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). This pay for play discussion has been talked about since the early 1900s but recently large steps are being made to actually make a change. There are many perspectives on the payment of collegiate student athletes coming from the NCAA, the athletes themselves, and the university officials.
Throughout the years college sports have been about the love of the game, filled with adrenaline moments. However, the following question still remains: Should college athletes get paid to play sports in college? Seemingly, this debate has been endless, yet the questions have gone unanswered. The National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) plays a vital role in this debate. The NCAA is a billion dollar industry, but yet sees that the athlete should get paid for their hard work and dedication.
Ever since college students started playing sports, back in 1879 when Harvard played Yale in the first collegiate sports game, the question of whether college athletes should be paid was addressed. From that point on athletes, coaches, and college administrators have brought forward points agreeing or disagreeing with the notion of paying college students. The students argue that they deserve to be paid due to the revenue that they bring for the college and because of the games they play and the championships they win. At first the idea of paying college athletes was out of the question, but now the argument has gone from a simple yes or no to a heated debate. Since college athletes are given a free education, they should not also be paid.
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.
Every year, there is a big debate on whether or not college athletes should receive pay for their play. The reasons and rhetoric to why they should be paid are enticing; players are the ones who earn the money for the schools, playing a sport at a major Division 1 University has the effect of a full-time job, the players are treated as slaves by their schools’ sports program. Although they exist in great number, these reasons for “pay for play” are invalid and are outweighed by the opposing side of the argument.
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.
There has been a recent debate on whether or not college athletes should be paid. Many people believe they should get paid, but many others believe they should not be paid. College athletes should not be paid because the students should worry about their education, it is an extracurricular activity, and the Ncaa does not approve of it.
As of today, there are over 460,000 NCAA student-athletes that compete in 24 different sports while in college throughout the United States (NCAA). Over the past couple decades, the argument for paying these college athletes has gained steam and is a hot topic in the sports community. However, paying these college athletes is not feasible because most universities do not generate enough revenue to provide them with a salary and some even lose money from the sports programs. These collegiate student-athletes are amateurs and paying them would ruin the meaning of college athletics. Also, playing college sports is a choice and a privilege with no mention or guarantee of a salary besides a full-ride scholarship. Although some argue that
Today there is much controversy over the subject of compensating college athletes. Some believe that providing a payment would further complicate the issue, but others say that it would end all of the problems. College athletes should receive some form of compensation for participation in collegiate sports due to the hardships they endure, a failure of scholarships to cover all expenses , the exploitation of college athletes by the colleges and universities they play for, a disparity between coaches’ and players’ compensation, and the hypocrisy of National Collegiate Athletic Association’s rules.
The typical high school/college athlete is distracted by all the glitter of things and money that schools are offering to the athlete rather than being consured about the education the schools can offer. Let’s say an athlete named Edward Thomas is rated number one in the nation in high school basketball. He has every big time college (university) wanting him badly, even a couple of NBA scouts are checking him out. Thomas even has a couple of highlights on Sports Center already. Now he has it in his head he can go straight to the league in the pros and get paid and finish school later. Thomas thinks that he can go to college for two years to develop better skills, and then he would stack up his paper by playing the pros, making $100,000 a year without a college degree.