College Athletes Should Be Banned Research Paper

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.

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.

Division 1 college sports like men 's basketball and football bring in an astronomical amount of money every year and the players that help bring in these revenues are not monetarily compensated. Over the years many people have been arguing that college athletes should be paid for playing. Although athletes are not compensated monetarily these players are compensated with an education which is the equivalent of thousands of dollars. Also, many schools can not afford to pay their athletes,the majority of schools barely make any money from their athletics programs, and even if they could afford to pay players it would cause several problems. Remember that a college is established to provide an education, colleges are not established to

When it comes to college athletics, there always will be a problem that arises. It is one of the most controversial topics there is. One of the main issues within athletics is the idea of whether to pay college athletes or not. Several studies have been done along with articles from various sources. This has been on the rise especially since “March Madness” is coming up. “March Madness” may only consist of three weekends, however, an 11 billion dollar deal is made to televise the games (Wilbon). This is when you have to take the time to sit back and contemplate whether these college athletes really are getting the fair end of the stick. Under NCAA laws it is forbidden to pay these athletes for their performance yet at the same time they

The NCAA feels the athletes should not be paid. Horace Mitchell from the NCAA Board of Directors states

For example Josh Huff a former wide receiver at the university of Oregon, states, “it’s ok for the NCAA to make money off my name and likeness, but once I go charge people to get in my party it’s a problem.” COLLEGIATE ATHLETES: THE CONFLICT BETWEEN NCAA AMATEURISM AND A STUDENT ATHLETE'S RIGHT OF PUBLICITY is an article that explains the unfairness in this situation. Because of his displeasure with the non-compensated and amateurism rule, josh began to shed light on the truth of that student athlete’s right are being violated. The NCAA alone makes millions of revenue of the hard work of these student athletes, names and participation in collegiate athletics. While the only thing justifies the decision, keeping them from being paid is that they already are receiving free education as well as college stipend. Looking at the meaning of amateurism and its purpose this article is to back up student athletes and recognize that their work and role in the NCAA is a little deeper than amateur status. Universities are making money of these students hard work and while the names on the team roster are what generate the demand, the ones in the backgrounds get compensated very handsomely. As stated in this article “The NCAA’s purpose is to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body and, by so doing, retain a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports.” But this clear line is already crossed when universities allow their students to become personal sales pitches and promotional puppets. See a lot of schools athletic revenue thrives of the backs of these students, literally using the names of these students and their success to uplift their school

Now, paying these athletes doesn’t have to be for everyone. Only the high caliber, D1 athletes. The D1 athletes put in all this time and effort to get a scholarship, but don’t see any money. Now that’s not right. These D1 caliber players don’t come around all the time. There are not many of them. Plus the schools that do have these players are super rich. “These teams not only provide their supporters with a steady source of entertainment, but their performance also helps bring notoriety and pride to the universities they represent. College athletics, especially the so-called "revenue sports" of men 's basketball and football, is now a multi-million dollar business that is marketed, packaged, and sold in the same manner as other commercial products” (Acain).

For years now there have been the argument if college athletes should be paid to play or not. It is an ongoing debate between many people including the National Collegiate Athletic Association(NCAA), athletes, coach, and other various people. The has debate has gone far enough that a lawsuit has started over it. There are many arguments for college athletes being paid such as; the athletes do not have time to work, their images are being used without any type of pay, and how the NCAA and coaches make millions of dollars off of the players while the players do not make anything. On the flip side of this, arguments that the athletes should not be paid include; they get paid in other varies ways, the average college athletic department loses enough money already without paying the athletes, and the fact that not all college athletes are in school to become professional athletes anyhow so making money from their athletic abilities should not be an issue for them at all.

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

Yet the college athlete gets paid nothing to play the game that he or she loves. When students play a sport in college, they become a part of the National College Athletic Association, better known as the NCAA. Any athlete in the NCAA is considered an amateur athlete, which means they cannot make any money from their respective sport. If athletes get paid in any way, it becomes a very serious legal matter. Most often, these cases end with the student being expelled and the university being fined. The NCAA bans their athletes from receiving payment in any way, even when sports are not involved. When discussing this issue, Craig T. Greenlee states the case of Darnell Autry, “In the summer of ’96, Autry, a theatre major who also played football for Northwestern University, was prohibited by NCAA rules from getting paid to appear in a movie shot in Italy” (67). The NCAA does allow student athletes to make money in any way. A debate has ensued. One side says these rules are outdated and need to be changed. Should NCAA student athletes receive compensation for their contributions to their universities?

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.

One key issue that the NCAA constantly deals with is the Pay to Play problem. Pay to Play is when a collegiate athlete takes money in return for autographs, a jersey, or an appearance. A few examples of players that have been a part of the controversy are Johnny Manziel, AJ Green, Cam Newton, and Reggie Bush. It was alleged that Johnny Manziel had signed autographs when he was in Miami for money, however the NCAA cannot prove that he had done so. AJ Green had sold his jersey after a bowl game and was punished by missing a few top games when playing for Georgia. While some players think that they should be paid to play, “NCAA President Mark Emmert stated that a "pay for play" model in college athletics would not be allowed any time soon.” While this issue is ongoing, and I do not think the NCAA will ever be able to completely stop players from trying to earn money, players do know that the NCAA takes this very seriously and will punish any athlete that partakes in any form of being paid to

It is about unimaginable for them to acquire enough cash all alone, so they would confront the result of having their program cut inside and out. On the off chance that a specific game is not creating income, colleges have to turn to other aspects to try and search for the money to pay the athletes. The finished result would be a reduction in the quantity of games offered by schools and in this manner a diminishing in the quantity of chances accessible for understudy competitors. Of course, the hotshot football and men 's basketball players want to earn money from the schools those two sports are the only two at the school that makes money. The thought that school competitors should be paid is a silly one