Athletes Deserve Their Money

College sports are a phenomenon that keeps viewers coming back for more. Stated in an article on Money Nation the NCAA makes an estimated $1 billion per year and this number is still growing. What really is insane is that all that money is made off of college athletes, who don’t get a penny from that total number. The debate on whether or not college athletes should be paid has been around for decades and probably will still be here for years to come. Paying college athletes would make the teams unfair, change how hard players will work to get better, affect the amateurism of college sports, and lastly influence the athlete's willingness to participate in college sports.

The hot topic in amateur sports has been as to whether or not college athletes should be paid. The NCAA amateur rule states that an athlete in college sports cannot be paid other than their athletic scholarship. These athletes spend a tremendous amount of time at school practice and then working on schoolwork after practice. The NCAA is an organization that oversees all of the athletes that make up the basic unit of intercollegiate sports. The success of the NCAA whether it’s through the sale of merchandise, game day revenue or NCAA tournaments that each individual sports has, despite the absolute success of these tournaments these athletes receive any monetary compensation .Some of the main reasons why the NCAA lack of payments are that it wants to maintain its amateur status and

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

The NCAA has been around and evolved since the beginning of college sports. This organization is a non-profitable organization, but ironically makes more than millions of profit per year. Branch states “that money comes from a combination of ticket sales, concession sales, merchandise, licensing fees, and other sources—but the great bulk of it comes from television contract”(pg. 228). Meanwhile, the student-athletes do not receive any of this money. This is the start of an unsubstantial business between universities built around amateurism.

College sports have a big market on the major school levels. These major schools can bring in 30 to 40 million dollars per year to the school through the athletic programs. The players get none of this share of money even though they are the ones who have to put themselves at risk during these tough games that provide the school profit. You may say that these college athletes are getting a free education at their choice of university but some many say they should get paid. Today as much money that runs in and out of these schools there is a huge controversy to whether or not these student athletes should get rewarded for their hard work on and off the

When people hear of college athletics, all they think of is a game. Most people do not realize that there is a million dollar industry going on around these athletes. Eric He, a sports fanatic who writes for the Daily Trojan, states, “The NCAA is a nonprofit, tax exempt organization that just happens to be a billion-dollar industry, raking in $740 million per year from March Madness alone” (par. 7). When the NCAA is generating that much money, how can it not go to the players? It is not the

But why should a student athlete be paid in the first place? Their just athletes right? They go to school just like everyone else? What makes them so special? What makes a college athlete different than the average student is the amount of revenue that they help bring to their selected colleges. This type of revenue is made up from ticket sales, merchandise, media rights and contributions. “USA today” reported that the University of Texas generated $167.7 million dollars from their athletic programs, and that’s just one school. With this in mind, imagine just how much money other colleges are making from their athletics. Sure one can make the argument that they should not be paid because they are not professionals, but one can’t ignore the fact that they are bringing in millions of dollars and seeing none of it.

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.

Some college athletic departments are as wealthy as professional sports teams. The NCAA has an average annual revenue of $10.6 billion dollars. College athletes should be paid because of the amount of revenue that they bring to their college. Each individual college should pay its athletes based on how much revenue they bring to the college in which they attend. The colleges that win their Division title, their Conference title, or the National championship, give bonuses to the Head coach of that team. If colleges have enough money to give bonuses to coaches, that means they have money that is left over for the athlete who gives them recognition to pay them. College athletes should be paid based solely upon the performance and success that they have.

Kim Kardashian’s ex lover is not just famous for dating a “Kardashian”; he was more famous for the controversial issue with the NCAA due to proceeds given to him for his ability on the field. Reggie Bush made a lot of accomplishments while being a college athlete. Because of his skills, he was rewarded an amount of money. While Reggie Bush was playing at the University of Southern California, statistics show that the college generated roughly fifty-five million dollars. That’s a lot of money for one athlete to bring in. Every day we hear more and more stories about NCAA investigators and colleges being punished for “paying” players. However, college athletes bring in a lot of money. Therefore, they should get a percentage whether it is a small amount or a large amount. It will depend on the athletes’ ability. While some may argue that paying college athletes to play is wrong, college athletes have a marketable skill and should be paid for their skill.

College athletics have gained immense popularity among Americans over the past few decades. This has resulted into increased revenues for the(NCAA) and the participating colleges which has fuelled the debate of whether college athletes should be compensated beyond their athletic scholarships. College athletes should be paid because they spend more time doing that than anything else. It 's kinda like having a full time job.Athletes form the basic unit of intercollegiate sports. Despite the success of NCAA tournaments, athletes do not receive any monetary compensation.

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

college athletes are rewarded with and the actual revenues the NCAA is collecting. For this discrepancy college athletes need to be rewarded for their effort and should be given stipends. Television broadcasting contracts, shoe and apparel deals, and commercial advertising rake in billions of dollars for the NCAA because of the participation of college students in sports. Last year alone, the NCAA’s total revenue was $777 million. Although the NCAA claims that 98 cents to every dollar is redistributed back into schools athletic programs for things like student services for athletes and

First, some say that college athletes should be paid because of the fact that the schools and the NCAA make billions. In an article from USA Today, it stated: “NCAA made more than $1 billion for the year” (Mama). On the other hand, they should not be paid because tons of the athletes get scholarships, they are rewarded with a free education, and they are technically getting around twenty-thousand dollars a year. First, in an article from Scholorshipstats.com in statistics from 2015 regarding the amount of scholarship money that was given out was nearly 2.2 billion dollars.

Each year the NCAA makes about eleven billion dollars in revenue for college sports. How much of that money do the athletes get? They get absolutely nothing for making the NCAA money. Which is crazy since they are ones who generate the money and television ratings. College athletes should be compensated for their efforts due to the understanding that their work brings notoriety to the college the athlete is attending, and brings revenue to the college as well; therefore athletes deserve part of these funds.