College Athletes Should Be Paid

“College Athletes for Hire, The Evolution and Legacy of the NCAA’s Amateur Myth” written by Allen L. Sack and Ellen J. Staurowsky. In their book, the authors enlighten the reader on such issues as athletic scholarships, professionalism in college sports, and favoritism for athletes as well as many more important legal, and ethical issues that we as a country need to address. In this paper I will not do a standard book report by simply regurgitating the information I read in their book.

The article responds to the debate about if college athletes should be paid on top of their scholarships/benefits. Critics of college sports argue that these student athletes are being exploited because it is possible for schools to generate revenue from TV contracts and other beneficial arrangements. Ackerman and Scott, both commissioners of a conference/sport, respond by stating “College is a time from learning, and college sports provide young men and women alike a chance to learn, grow, graduate, and achieve great things in life.” The purpose of this article is to educate the audience, critics of

The authors begin the article discussing the creation of the NCAA and how they came to the creation of their amateurism laws, providing a background to as to why college athletes are not allowed to receive any form of monetary payment. Johnson and Acquaviva then present five arguments as to why college athletes should not be compensated. These arguments are that athletes are being paid with their education, new issues would arise with fair pay if college athletes were compensated, college athletes are receiving more than just an education, paying college athletes would eliminate competition, and that college athletes already know what to expect when they sign to play for a university. The authors then provide counter arguments that help to prove that college athletes should be paid for their play. These are that the cost of living is not covered in college scholarships, college athletes don’t understand that they will be set aside if they are injured or benched, and college athletes do not receive more than an education due to their full schedules. The authors then explain some of the plans that could help to fairly compensate college athletes, such as allowing them to receive endorsement deals. Finally, Johnson and

Abstract:  Collegiate athletes participating in the two revenue sports (football, men's basketball) sacrifice their time, education, and risk physical harm for their respected programs. The players are controlled by a governing body (NCAA) that dictates when they can show up to work, and when they cannot show up for work. They are restricted from making any substantial financial gains outside of their sports arena. These athletes receive no compensation for their efforts, while others prosper from their abilities. The athletes participating in the two revenue sports of college athletics, football and men's basketball should be compensated for their time, dedication, and work put forth in their respected sports.

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.

Ever since college students started playing sports, back in 1879 when Harvard played Yale in the first collegiate sports game, the question of whether college athletes should be paid was addressed. From that point on athletes, coaches, and college administrators have brought forward points agreeing or disagreeing with the notion of paying college students. The students argue that they deserve to be paid due to the revenue that they bring for the college and because of the games they play and the championships they win. At first the idea of paying college athletes was out of the question, but now the argument has gone from a simple yes or no to a heated debate. Since college athletes are given a free education, they should not also be paid.

Every year the financial cost required for college sports to occur is increasing. From gigantic stadiums being built to hold 80,000 plus spectators, to multi million-dollar TV deals, and the sales of thousands of jerseys leaving campus stores. The revenue generated from college sports is a billon dollar industry, one that rewards coaches, staff members, and universities with ostentatious contracts, and gratuitous bonuses. Case and point, “Nick Saban is paid $5 million dollars more than Alabama 's chancellor” (Has College Football Become A Campus Commodity?). Amidst the profiteering, the NCAA is completely capitalizing on their student athletes’ likeness and achievements. The NCAA standard states college athletes should not receive payment since they are merely amateurs representing their schools. I contest this standard, arguing that athletes must be paid a salary in order to redeem the legitimacy of the NCAA.

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.

For about a decade, the debate between whether collegiate athletes should be paid while playing has been contemplated. Now, the focus has moved from all sports to two specific areas, football and men’s basketball. Sprouting from many court cases filed against the NCAA to some ugly sandals dealing with the athletes themselves. In the 2010 – 2011 time frame, this controversy really sparked up chatter; eventually leading the current pled for sport reformation. Our student athletes are the ones who are at the expense here stuck in between this large argument. Over the past 10 years, there has been minor things done for either side and the players themselves have started taking things into their own hands. The year 2010 a total of 7 student

College athletes should be paid. The athletes put in as much work as the people who do get paid. Why should they not be paid? There are many pros for why they should get paid, but there are also many cons on why they should not get paid. The athletes should get paid because of how hard they work in season and the off-season. Do not pay all of the athletes, but pay the ones who are at a D1 college. The athletes should get paid because they put in the same amount of time as the pros do, and the pros get paid.

The inquiry into college athletes to be paid – beyond scholarships – should be conducted by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC), also athletes and family. The NCAA’s nonsense about protecting the tradition of amateurism and junior athletes is the main energy source powering the fight of college athletes not being paid. The punitive governing body of college sports spends most of its time sniffing out minor violations to punish the athletes responsible for generating annual revenue that is expected to peak into the billions. For starters, since when does a cost-free college

Is an athletic scholarship really enough of a “payment” to reimburse athletes for the billions of dollars made by the NCAA every year? This issue of paying collegiate athletes, especially football and basketball players, has been around for many years. Athletes, students, bystanders, and NCAA analysts and authority figures have a strong opinion about paying college athletes. Whether college athletes should be paid or not is a debate topic that is more prevalent today than ever.

The issue at stake in this particular paper is the situation of college athletes and the treatment they receive from the NCAA. The NCAA is currently financially and academically exploiting college athletes at very young age. The NCAA generates billions of dollars though the hard work of the student athletes, and the athletes are given no monetary compensation. The NCAA also expects college athletes to fully participate in academics, but with the rigor of the athletic

When the topic is brought up about why college athletes should be paid to play, more then half of people instantly will disagree and say “no way, what for”? But have they really looked into all the reasons pointing towards paying them? I know it sounds like I'm trying to say give them all million dollar contracts and call it a done deal, but that is not the case. Aside from the athletic and academic scholarships to pay for tuition, the money they would be receiving would be miniscule to what they could be making if they were working at a full-time job instead. This money would basically cover small costs an athlete must make when living on his own, since there is no time for a job, he has to balance the careful act of school and sports. Only a select few big time athletes will actually make it all the way to the big leagues and receive a big payout. Once this money distribution to the players is in affect, it will clean up a lot of problems in college sports.

It is an age old debate on whether a college athlete should be paid. It is a high school student 's dream to play sports at the collegiate level. Many people question why the NCAA, coaches, and administrators are allowed to earn large amounts of money while the student athlete’s hard work and efforts are limited to a scholarship. Others feel that is should be considered a privilege that a college athlete can earn a college degree while enjoying what they love, by playing collegiate sports. Student athletes should not receive payment because they are already receiving payment in the form of an expensive athletic scholarship and are also able to receive the new cost of attendance stipend to assist with further financial burdens.