Essay on Athletic Programs of Universities

Division III athletics have become more then high school athletes holding onto a dream and competing at the non-scholarship level of the National collegiate athletic association. From 2004 to 2012 the average cost of having a division III athletics program has gone up 200% (Fulks, 2013). From 2004 until 2012 the average cost per athlete has also gone up, from $3,500 to $5,800. This money does not even touch the levels that are being spent in Division I, but Division III athletics are on an upward trend of spending.

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.

College athletics is a billion dollar industry and has been for a long time. Due to the increasing ratings of college athletics, this figure will continue to rise. It’s simple: bigger, faster, stronger athletes will generate more money. College Universities generate so much revenue during the year that it is only fair to the players that they get a cut. College athletes should get paid based on the university’s revenue, apparel sales, and lack of spending money.

What college athlete would not want to be paid to play the sport that he or she loves? The real question is, though, should college athletes be paid for their roles in a college’s athletics? They are many points to each side of this recent controversial topic, which is why this has been made into such a hot debate in the past couple of years. As of right now, these athletes are not getting paid, but many of them truly believe that they should. Others believe that they already are being paid through certain types of scholarships and don’t deserve anything more than that. With that being said, there are two sides of this topic that have quality points.

Furthermore, where should the money come from? Is it the responsibility of the school to pay these athletes or the NCAA? Other questions include how much should students-athletes be paid, how often, will it work in a similar way that professional contracts work, etc.? All these questions reveal how difficult it would be to change the college athletic system to compensate college athletes. Regardless of what number of individuals feels that athletes ought not to be paid for their ability, there is pretty much the same number of individuals whom feel they ought to. There are numerous reasons why individuals think a student athlete ought to be adjusted. Some of those reasons incorporate; individuals feel that frequently the college utilizes these athletes as boards for their school. Additionally, the universities are "offering the athletes' names and achievements for the schools own acknowledgment. “Athletic organizations are utilizing college athletes to offer their items, along these lines the athletes ought to see a portion of the money that is earned. It has even been demonstrated that promoting through understudy athletes extraordinarily impacts more youthful

College athletes should receive some sort of payment for playing for their college. Many people believe that college athletes should be paid financially, because they are considered to be taken advantage of by the NCAA and most other school systems, because they should receive pay. Most college athletes are the main reason for huge profits from many merchandise sales; live events such as the game itself, and media and live coverage also provide sales increases. Differently from the professional sports, the athletes don’t get any type of cut. College teams may not have the same national expectations as the professional ones, but they are just as important, if not, even more important than professional athletes. Millions of dollars of merchandise,

If college athletes were to start being paid, many questions would start to surface. The big question that would pop up first is, “What sports get paid?” Statistics show that football and basketball are the major revenue sports that actually make money for their universities, while most other college sports do not. While football brings in on average the most revenue, basketball is close to second. Another question that may be asked is, “How will the money be split?” Like many others, the writer believes that the biggest question lies in which areas of competition would get paid. Famous Fab Five member Jalen Rose states that, “Every student athlete should be paid $2000 a year” (Salvador). However, if you do that, in fairness, would one pay a star football player and a star rowing team member the same amount of money? Or would a woman athlete get paid just as much as a male athlete? If this not the case then it becomes extremely unfair and would just cause controversy. Fairness is important when coming to this, especially the fairness between females and males. There are several different questions that need to be reviewed and that proves why college athletes should not be paid. It would cause absolute chaos and a plethora

“They need to have some real money to walk around with that they can live off of.” Student athletes are not allowed to work much under NCAA regulations, and those who are in favor of paying them often point to that rule as a reason college athletes need money. But that reason isn’t enough for all coaches to share O’Brien’s views toward paying student athletes. Wrestling coach Russ Hellickson answered the same question: Should student athletes be paid? He came up with a very different response. “No, but they should be able to get what, say, a Presidential Scholar gets,” he said in an e-mail. “This should be an educational experience.” Presidential Scholars receive full in-state tuition, room and board, book allowances and miscellaneous expenses — a total that OSU media relations estimates to be $12,483 per year for in-state students. That is nearly $2,000 more than an in-state athlete receives, even if they are awarded a full scholarship. Most of that $2,000 falls under the category of miscellaneous expenses, something athletes do not receive money for. The extra scholarship money is to be used for “athletic tickets, book costs, bus passes; anything that students need for living,” said Amy Murray, OSU spokeswoman. Some coaches are in favor of keeping things exactly as they are, without raising scholarship levels. Softball coach Linda Kalafatis said she did not feel well

Even though an additional $2,000 a semester does not seem like a lot of money, for some smaller market colleges this extra expense may create problems. That is why I suggest either requiring the NCAA itself to provide the extra money to the players or allowing the players to make money off of jersey sales, autograph signings, etc. By potentially taking this financial burden away from the schools and transferring it the NCAA you avoid putting undo stress on smaller schools and instead ask the NCAA, a multi-billion dollar industry, to barely dip into their huge expanse of funding/profit. Furthermore, the NCAA itself is considered a non-profit organization so instead of hoarding the billions of dollars a year that it earns it should be giving money back to the student-athletes who have made the NCAA what it is today (SOURCE). Even though many schools would not be able to pay student athletes the extra scholarship money many larger schools could easily provide this additional scholarship money. For instance, some schools already pay their head football coaches millions of dollars a year. One specific example of this is Alabama Head Football coach Nick Saban. Saban makes six million dollars a year and also receives other

The idea of an athlete having an all expenses paid trip to college has never happened, but a narrative that is told to prospective students regularly. The reason for no complete full-rides is not the amount of students that are getting scholarships, but as Farrey states on page 130 that only ⅕ of the revenue made by the NCAA goes to scholarships. This means that although there is money to give, it isn’t being given to students. Instead, as Farrey writes on page 129 that Ohio State’s football coach has a salary of 2.4 million, the money is going to coaches. Furthermore, according to Ohio State’s web page, the total cost and fees for an out-of-state student is $41,947, or 1.75% of the head football coach’s salary.

Also, college athletes should not be paid because that is not the purpose for going to college. Many argue that is not he purpose for going to college. Many argue that going to college is not for money but for education (should college...1). They should not be paid because playing a sport is not a job. Students go to college to take classes to later have a career. Also, not all colleges make enough money for all of the athletes to be paid (“Should College...1”). There are a ton of athletes that participate in many sports in college. There are too many athletes at a college for all of them to be paid.

With the current rules of amateurism, an athletic scholarship only covers tuition and fees, room, board, and course-related books (J.Coleman). There is nothing in these scholarships that includes necessities for living, such as food and clothing. Student-athletes have to find a way to eat every night and, if they have the money, buy their own clothes. One of the most scary aspects of being a college athlete is the chance of injury. In Griffin’s article, he states, “The NCAA does not require schools to pay for sports-related injuries—it's optional.

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

Each university associated with the NCAA differ in size and budgeting. Some schools would have no problem paying each student athlete at their school only because of their profits from their ultimate money sports such a football and basketball, while other schools struggle now to even field enough teams to remain an NCAA school. This is why I find it intriguing to see where each school lies on how this situation could affect them. Athletes being paid could also affect high school and pro sports as well which interests me more to research this topic. High school athletics could improve by students pushing harder at the high school level to reach the college level because of pay, while pro sports could have many different affects such as students not leaving school early because of pay at the college level now.

Another way in which athletic program benefit universities generally is that a bulk of the expenses of any athletic program goes to provide scholarships for student-athletes. . .As a result, the university receives tuition money for that athlete, which is used to meet any number of expenses, such as academic buildings, professors’ salaries, and research. At school with high-profile athletic programs, this influx of scholarship money can be quite significant. For example, the University of Wisconsin athletic department provided $5.6 million in scholarships[. . .] (Marzilli 26)