Imagine you are a college athlete. You have worked hard throughout your life to get to where you are today, a Division I college athlete. However, the grind doesn’t stop there. You still have to put in about 40 hours each week on your sport, attend mandatory team workouts and meetings, and travel and compete for your school. Not to mention you still have difficult college classes, sleep, and your social life to worry about. You are well aware of the sacrifices you have to make, but your school? Now that’s another story. They require you to hold a certain GPA and play well enough to keep your hard-earned scholarship, and when you do well on the field, no matter how many awards you win, the school gets the ultimate prize: Money. Yes, college athletes receive scholarships, which do cover a good amount of the cost of college. However, do they cover textbooks and meal plans and other numerous expenses? Former NCAA basketball Final Four MVP Shabazz Napier said “ there are hungry nights that I go to bed and I’m starving”. If this doesn’t tell the NCAA that something is wrong, what will? I strongly believe that NCAA Division I athletes should be paid a certain amount of money because they make money for the NCAA. Therefore, they should be treated like any other paid employee and receive fair compensation. Not paying the athletes is likely an antitrust violation and also morally wrong.
Before I explain why athletes should be paid, I want to clarify why athletes are truly unpaid in
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
Scholarships are inadequate to fulfill the full cost of the college experience, As a result they find themselves struggling financially but do not have enough time to find a part time job as they are busy 80 hours a week between school and their sport. They bring in billions of dollars in revenue for the NCAA but they do not see one dime of it as it is distributed back to the schools to pay for the coaches and staff. Even though a coach has a significant impact on the success of the team , the players are the ones that actually risk their bodies day in and day out.These students are being pulled away from their homes to be exploited while their coaches are making a six figure salary. It is not fair that the star player of a university, can struggle to even afford to eat a piece of pizza outside of school. That being said division 1 college athletes, who are making millions of dollars for their schools should get an allowance teach them financial responsibility which can ultimately help the players more in their
To pay or not to pay, that is the question. This question, one of disparity, confronts the NCAA all the time today. Football and basketball players generate billions of dollars in revenue for their schools but do not receive any. College athletes cannot be paid because of the “no pay” rules and the “Principle of Amateurism.” The NCAA will not have to deal with as many rule violations and scandals. Plus, the NCAA could still label an amateurism principle without actually crossing the line with professionalism. Because athletes are focusing solely on sports and have no time to do anything else, athletes need money to support themselves. Not only does the school acquire revenue from ticket sales, apparel and sponsorships, but it becomes more
We often forget that playing a sport is not the only way to earn a scholarship. Many students are accepted for exceptional grades, involvement in the band, clubs, or being well rounded. Most of these students just have to study to keep their scholarship, while the athletes have to work hard and be a student. In a competitive market, “workers” are paid according to the value of the output they produce (Heath). It does not seem right that the college journalist can sell their piece to a paper for extra cash, or the local band can play for a few dollars at the bar Saturday night, or the biology major that takes an internship at the school lab can be profitable yet college athletes cannot. Under the NCAA they are not allowed to make any money of their skill. Any college student should be able to endorse products (Wilbon). This is why the idea of going to school for free should not be an argument against paying athletes, because that is not the case and they have earned it.
College sports is a multi-billion dollar industry. Each year thousands of high school students are recruited to play college sports, but under strict conditions. Students are required to do well in athletics while keeping up with their academics. College athletes spend up to forty five hours per week on practices, training, and games. In addition, they spend roughly forty hours on their academics. The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletics Association) does not think it is necessary to pay these athletes because they want to maintain the “amateur sport” status. According to Stanley Eitzen in his “College Athletes should be Paid, “The universities and the NCAA claim their athletes in big-time sports programs
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.
The argument of paying college athletes outside of the scholarships they may be receiving is becoming a rather popular topic. “Should College Athletes Be Paid?”, an article in Santa Clara Law written by Ron Katz, Isac Vaughn and Mike Gilleran weighs both sides of paying student athletes. They argue the point that regardless how you look at the situation, a handful of college sports have become a business. Sports such as Men’s football and basketball being broadcast on television now generate approximately $750 per year for colleges. It is acknowledged that the ones who are bringing in this money (the student athletes) are not receiving revenue from the sport they are playing. The idea of treating all sports the same was possible back in the day but today you cannot deny that one sport may bring in much more than another. Therefore Gilleran et. al. concludes that each school should be able to choose if they want to start using the business idea and paying the athletes for their work. “Alabama head coach, Nick Saban’s contract extension calls for him to make $45 million over the next eight years. His players, on the other hand, receive only the NCAA scholarships that does not even cover their basic living expenses.” (Gilleran et. al. par. 27) How is it that
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 is blatant, inarguable proof that the players and their talents are being exploited. These athletes are the draw to the games. They are the reason people watch and cheer on their teams. The amount of money given as a “full” scholarship is a marginal benefit only a drop in the bucket when compared to the market value of a player’s talent and skills. Athletic scholarships, as will be explained later, is indeed financial assistance but still leaves the student athlete living below, or at best slightly above, the poverty line. The NCAA and the respective universities has a duty to be concerned with the overall well-being of its players, not just whether or not an injury would keep their star player from playing in the upcoming game. The NCAA ought to consider the social responsibility of meeting the needs of its players, subsequently initiating a reformation of the NCAA bylaws concerning paying college athletes.
How is it fair that college athletic programs rake in so much money from their respective sports and don’t have to pay for their labor? College athletics plays a major role in the sports world today and will continue to be as it is growing more and more popular. With this, is the ever-growing issue of athletes in their respective programs being paid as employees. This issue has been clouding college athletics for some time and it is becoming a much larger topic since athletes feel that they should be compensated for their services. Also, there have been several lawsuits filed against universities and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Even though colleges offer full scholarships to athletes,
People are debating many controversial issues around the world today. One controversial issue is whether or not college athletes should be paid or not. Many argue college athletes should be paid although others argue why they should not be paid. Some people believe that a scholarship should be enough payment. A scholarship can be worth $15,000 - $25,000 or more per year, plus millions if the athlete goes on to play in professional leagues. Student athletes also receive all kinds of benefits while they are in college, like staying at fancy hotels, living in the best residence halls, being seen on national television, and all of the popularity that goes with being a star athlete. It’s hard to put a price tag on all of that. I believe student
There is an on-going debate over whether college athletes should be compensated for their athletic participation at universities. Under current NCAA policy, college athletes are compensated via scholarships. Scholarships are payments that are placed towards a student’s education. These provide athlete’s food, board, and cover all education expenses. The NCAA provides approximately 1380,000 scholarships to Division I and II sports each year (US News).The majority of athletic scholarships must be renewed each year. In other words, colleges can drop an athlete’s scholarship after the academic year. This puts pressure on students to not only perform well in their sport, but also academically. Also, college athletes must perform well on the
For decades student-athletes have been given their all for the enjoyment of their school and respective state they are located in. When you are at the Division I level it is more business, more competition and more money. Even though it isn’t publicly said athlete’s job is to bring in a profit for the university that they attend for funding of their school. Tickets, sportswear, television contracts are making top Division I schools millions of dollars, but; why aren’t athlete’s getting any? In recent times, there has been a huge question that’s in the heads of athletes, coaches, parents which is should they get paid for their play on the field.