Over the decades, Division I college athletes have been pouring their heart and soul into the game they love. Their passion for sports has allowed them to attend and play for a university of their choice. College sports is similar to a business, especially at the Division I level and the athlete’s job is to bring profit and revenue to their school. In recent years, there has been an ongoing conflict in collegiate athletics: should college athletes get paid? In this essay, I will discuss the effects of paying college athletes, and reveal on how much each athlete is really receiving. Before discussing the problems that would occur if college athletes were being paid, I will discuss the privileges and other benefits student athletes receive will …show more content…
Basically, an athlete is signing a contract to play a sport at their university in exchange for a scholarship. The athlete knows he cannot receive extra benefits from organizations or from fans. By signing the National Letter of Intent, or contract with his or her school, the player is therefore representing the university, not their individual name. Usually, Division I programs are sponsored by one of the three main clothing brands, Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour. By signing with the university of their choice, they too represent the sponsors of their school. Representing the university sponsorship deals provides athletes with free clothes, sock, shoes, and equipment just by being on the team. In reality, student athletes are being paid legally, especially on away games. Student athletes are given spending cash by the university, with a little self-control, they could create a comfortable life style. According to Sports Digest, half of student-athletes spend eight hours or more outside of practices (The Sport Digest 2002-2010). If college athletes get paid, there is a strong possibility that some sports programs will be cut due to lack of funds. Not all big-time universities can afford to pay players, which is why some of the sports programs would be cut. Almost all college athletes spend the same amount of time on their respective sports; which is why it would be unfair if some sports programs be cut
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.
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.
College athletics are becoming more like the professional leagues except for one big issue, money. Student athletes bring in a vast amount of revenue for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) not to mention recognition and notoriety regarding the athlete’s university. However, the debate continues as to whether student athletes should or should not receive payment for playing college sports.
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.
Kids grow up loving to play sports in their free time. They never get paid to play when they are at a young age. They do it for the love of the game and for the need for competition. This is the way that it is in college right now. College athletes compete with all their hearts to be the best they can for their schools. They don’t get paid a cent. It has been a common debate if that is the right way to do it. Should it be that college athletes do not deserve to get paid for playing a sport? It should not be this way. College athletes certainly should get paid to play.
Waking up before the sunrise is a daily routine. Early morning film sessions, class, then practice, which dominates the day. There are few moments in between for food and socializing, but the life of a student athlete is anything but ordinary. Sleep, eat, practice and school are all an athlete knows, and with the pressures of campus life it becomes even more difficult. No time for much of anything, let alone getting a job. Like most students, these athletes need money, but do not have a spare moment to work. Without any source of income, athletes are put at a major disadvantage. Their full-time job is athletics, in addition to rigorous college-level courses. The possibility of becoming a professional athlete and making millions
Howard Chudacoff raises the controversial question of whether or not college athletes should be paid during a time of the year when people are most focused on college athletics, March Madness. Chudacoff is a firm believer that college athletes are given enough amenities as it is and do not deserve extra compensation or paychecks. His main arguments to support his position revolve around the royalties that power five athletes receive in regards to education centers, training facilities, and the fact that these players receive a free education. Chudacoff paints the picture of these facilities throughout his article and appeals to the reader’s pathos by descriptively showing the reader how college athletes really do live like millionaires.
College athletes being paid has become an interesting debate in recent years. People are starting to get different feelings of the old way of not paying amateurs. Profits are so easily made in today’s age through social media, advertisements, apparel, and ticket sales, that programs are bringing in millions of dollars each year off the likeness of their athletes. Athletes dedicate their lives to the sports they play and it consumes their time. Data shows that some colleges do bring in millions of dollars a year in profit, but many colleges around the US are struggling to break even. Should college athletes be rewarded for their hard work and dedication? Opponents of paying college athletes point out that they are rewarded through scholarships,
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
In trying to decide what research topic I wanted to use, I took many ideas into thought. I decided that the one idea that interests me most is whether student athletes should be paid or not. This is very intriguing to me since my master’s program is sports management. In order to do this research there must be many ways to use research as well as ideas from other people. This project is a very big topic in today’s discussion amongst sport fans, college administrators, and student athletes themselves. Media has recently put more pressure on this topic as well with the Northwestern decision to unionize as well as pointing out an athletic director gaining an $18,000 supplement for a wrestler at their school winning a national
Since 2011, the focus on paying collegiate athletes has become an important topic of discussion. The NCAA, athletic departments, and other corporations are making profit off college athletes and the question has become whether it is just or not. The sums of money that these corporations are bringing in are like that of professionals. Many colleges have adapted professional sports’ requirements and commitment but the problem that has arisen is whether college athletes should receive payment. Many believe that being a collegiate athlete is equivalent to a job, so athletes should be awarded for all the time and effort they put in. Others believe that scholarships and grants should be enough because paying athletes would lose the value of amateurism.
Although players are not paid, they are often given athletic scholarships to attend college. In one year alone more than 5,000 athletic scholarships are given in the Division one (Div 1) level for just football. Moreover NCAA is by far the largest collegiate athletic association in the U.S. with well over 1,000 schools in its fold. Divisions I, II, and III serve to establish these athletic programs. Formal athletic scholarships can be extended to athletes that play for Div I and II schools creating many opportunities for athletes to acquire an athletic scholarship. This exemplifies that Top College athletes already do get paid, in the form of amazing scholarships. Furthermore, those with professional ambitions benefit from the critical training and exposure that enhances their draft prospects and bring them to the next level; this shows that colleges dispense roughly $1billion dollars in athletic scholarships each year. Giving student athlete’s payment would be equal to
College sports are big business. For many universities, the athletic program serves as a cash-generating machine. Exploited athletes generate millions of dollars for the NCAA and their schools, and never see a dime. In terms of profit, if all ties with the university were eliminated, an athletic program acting as its own separate entity could compete with some fortune 500 companies. So, why do the vital pieces of the machine, the players, fail to receive any compensation for their performance? The answer lies in the money-hungry NCAA and their practice of hoarding all the revenue. College athletes should receive payment for their play to make their college experience more bearable because they create huge profits and