Athletes Shouldn T Be Paid Analysis

There have been much controversy weather universities should pay student athletes. The nation is divided into two groups, financially compensating the student-athlete or not. One side declares Division I and Division II schools make millions of dollars off ticket and merchandise, therefore, the athlete should receive a salary. The argument arises when for instance in football or basketball, schools make millions for winning bowls or tournaments, which the money awarded to the schools goes far beyond a four-year education. Video games along with last names on jersey have been banned for sale since college athletes were used without receiving financial compensation. On top of this are the multimillion dollar sponsorship deals universities are making with athletic apparel companies. The other side argues student athletes receive a free college education from prestigious schools and therefore should not receive financial gains. They declare a student-athlete receives free national exposure and paying them will uneven the playing field in college sports. In addition, a student will be deducted income taxes from their salary if paid. Most imply, some of the students come from inner city neighborhoods and some cannot read or write at a college level. As a result, these athletes are assigned tutors and therefore pass the courses with ease. In all, college sports have become huge money makers, but the question arises whether an

Whether college athletes should or should not get paid has been a controversial topic throughout the Collegiate Athletic Association for many years now. According to the article “My Priceless Opportunity” by Bill Walton , he believes that NCAA student athletes should not get paid because “the players entering the game know the rules going in and that they have been given a chance to make something of their lives in exchange for the privilege of being a student athlete”. Others like Michael Wilbon, author of “As Colleges’ Greed Grows, So Does the Hypocrisy”, thinks student athletes should get paid due to their hard work and labor. While I respect and admire the diligent task of being both a student and an athlete, I strongly agree with Bill Walton and the many others who support college athletes not being paid.

Sports have been a big part of culture in the United States since the 1900’s. Sports has become a multibillion dollar business of sort, with spots such as baseball, basketball, and football captivating americans.With american sports gaining popularity, the growth of college sports went on the rise. In 2013, The National Collegiate Athletic Association statistically generated $912,804,046 (Alesia, 2014). With all of this income that the NCAA brought in, one has to raise the question, should college athletes be paid? Even though college athletes are student athletes, they should be paid because they are practically employees to the college without compensation.

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.

Harker said, “On some campuses the pursuit of athletic dominance has eroded the ideal of the student athlete.” The Delaware coach explains how those student athletes already face problems being students before athletes and he believes that if athletes were to be paid it would distract the students even more. In sum, Harker is stating that athletes do not have to sacrifice their free education to reach their full potential as college athletes. College is a time where young adults learn the values of responsibility and realize that education will have a more positive impact on their future than sports.

Kristi Dosh and Mark Cassell have contrasting opinions about compensation of college athletes. Dosh’s opinion is that college athletes should not be paid because there are problems associated with it. She inquires, “The first question I ask people when they say college athletes should be paid is: where is the money going to come from?” (477). She exposed only a few colleges are turning a net profit. She mentions that paying athletes who are mostly male could cause issue with federal laws like the

Howard P. Chudacoff, a professor of history at Brown University, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal titled, “Let’s Not Pay College Athletes.” Chudacoff outlines the reasons why athletes in the major two collegiate sports, football and men’s basketball, that participate in a power five conference; Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big XII, Southeastern, and PAC-12 Conferences: should not be paid for their services to their institutions. Chudacoff provides examples of academic centers and practice facilities to strengthen his point that collegiate athletes are given enough royalties to go along with a free education.

Several times throughout the article he seems to have a tone that hurts his credibility and arguments, by saying “It is ludicrous to argue that the Power 5 programs cannot afford this.” This harsh, unintentional bashing at others who do not believe in what the author is saying hurts his claim and argument by talking down to his audience; as if they do not know what they are reading. Another remark he makes is, “the appeal of college athletics, in no small part, is that the players are students at the universities, so they would still have to take classes. But their loads should be reduced during their years of eligibility, and once their playing days are over, they should be able to finish their education free. That’s only fair.” Here the author is almost stating that regular non college student athletes are not at the same level of importance as the athletes, possibly making some readers frustrated that these athletes get the easy road throughout college. Also, by saying they will be able to go to college free after playing, makes students going to school after graduating for a higher degree feel unimportant and unprivileged compared to the

More and more it’s discussed daily on whether if college athletes should finally be paid, or remain unpaid, this topic is very important because college sports are very popular in the United States. College athletes should remain unpaid because it wouldn’t be fair to the other less watch sports that don’t bring in a lot of revenue, it wouldn’t be fair to the female athletes they wouldn’t be paid equally, college athletes already have advantages and receive benefits, and paying the athletes would only benefit the big named universities and not the smaller schools. College athletes were all recruited out of high school to play a sport for a university of their choosing, if the athletes were good enough they would receive a scholarship, that comes with a free education, free housing, and a free meal plan. A discussed topic is should college athletes be paid because of all the hard work and revenue that they bring towards their universities, or should they remain unpaid because they are already receiving enough. In the article “Pay to play: should college athletes be paid?” Many get scholarships, which help pay for their tuition, supplies, housing, and sporting equipment. According to the NCAA, college athletes often receive grants worth more than $100,000”. (Birkenses & Bagaria Par. 8) A free education is already enough, college athletes get to go to school for free just because of their athletic abilities, which also

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.

His statistics show the outlandish amount of money that is generated by big-time college sports, often disputed by the NCAA. Not having enough money to pay athletes what they deserve has been one of the biggest arguments from universities and colleges for many years. However, Eitzen’s article and the statics he provides proves that these big-time sports programs generate more than enough to compensate their athletes more than what they receive from athletic scholarships. One statistic he provides states that “The NCAA has signed a 6.2 trillion dollar, 11 year deal giving CBS [Columbia Broadcasting System] the right to televise its men’s basketball championship. (That’s 5.45 million dollars a year, up from 2.16 million with the arrangement that ended in 2002)” (Eitzen 3). This statistic does not include the money the NCAA generates from advertising and ticket sales from the tournament. Athletes see none of this money. According to Eitzen, the athletes and their performance are the reason all this money is being made, yet they are not rewarded for their efforts. Eitzen states that these athletes are being served another injustice by witnessing their coaches benefit from all their hard work. He writes about a set of unfair regulations the NCAA has created in order to keep big-time college sports “amateur”. The regulations state, “They may receive only educational benefits (i.e., room, board, tuition, fees, and books); cannot sign with an agent and retain eligibility;

College athletes should be paid to play and schools need to consider compensating these athletes for their talents based on the revenue they generate. Given the fact college sports is a big money maker for many universities and colleges, Kenneth Cooper, author of the article, “Should College Athletes be Paid to Play”?, argues that “college athletes should not be paid due to the fact they are still amateurs who are representatives of the schools they attend” (Cooper). Additional arguments made by Cooper against paying the athletes, include the fact that “these men and women are not just athletes, but students first” (Cooper). From my point of view, this statement would be true only if the emphasis were realistically placed on academics. Therefore,

During the years prior to the year 2017, there has been thousands of controversial topics that the world or United States has had to deal with. Whether the conflict is over a world problem such as Global Warming, or if it is a country conflict such as abortion laws. Many people have to work together in order to find the right solution to what will work best for everybody. The steps that is taken to come up with a solution is the same steps for any controversial topic that comes up. With that being said a big controversy in the United States today is whether or not college athletes should be paid while attending and playing for the University of their

There has been amplified debate on the treatment, education, training of the college athlete. To avoid exploitation of athletes, “The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), formed in 1905, set bylaws requiring college student-athletes to be amateurs in order to be eligible for intercollegiate athletics competition” (Schneider n.p.). Intercollegiate athletics have dramatically changed over the last several decades. Currently, intercollegiate athletics generate tremendous amounts of revenue, remarkably in football and basketball. College sports in America is a