College Athletes Should Not Be Banned

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

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.

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

The popularity of college sports has risen tremendously throughout the years amongst Americans. The passion to watch college basketball, football, baseball, and other sports has generated billions of dollars to the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) and to various athletic programs throughout America. Even though, colleges are raking in millions of dollars from their sports teams. “Last year 's National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") basketball tournament generated over $70 million in gross receipts” (Goldman).The NCAA prohibits payments, beyond educational scholarships, to athletes who are the source of these revenues. College athletes spend countless number of hours in their sport every day by attending long and tiresome practices, workout sessions, and film sessions whilst balancing their academics, but do not receive any payment for their efforts. Athletes are putting their lives and careers in danger during practices and games by being vulnerable to any type of injury that might end their careers, and many of these athletes are not provided any type of medical insurance to fund their injuries. Colleges need to realize that athletes often feel exploited because while they generate revenues, they are scrounging to meet their basic necessities and sacrificing their academic and professional careers. Many college athletes, professional lawyers, and sports analysts have taken various initiatives to help

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.

Throughout the years college sports have been about the love of the game, filled with adrenaline moments. However, the following question still remains: Should college athletes get paid to play sports in college? Seemingly, this debate has been endless, yet the questions have gone unanswered. The National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) plays a vital role in this debate. The NCAA is a billion dollar industry, but yet sees that the athlete should get paid for their hard work and dedication.

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.

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

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.

Colleges are infamous for pouring millions upon millions of dollars into their sports programs, except of course, when it comes to paying athletes. Because college athletes are not allowed to be paid in accordance to federal law while they simultaneously create large sums of revenue, there has been a heated debate that Kristi Dosh and Mark Cassell readily provide contrasting evidence for. In Dosh’s article, “The Problems with Paying College Players,” she argues that it would not be fair to pay college players because many college sports programs are already indebted to their school, and if some schools couldn’t afford to pay their players, the well-funded schools would be at an unprecedented advantage. To contrast, Cassell’s “College Athletes Should be Able to Negotiate Compensation,” takes the viewpoint defending college athletes’ pay because the athletes that bring in the most revenue, the star players, are cheated out of compensation in a way that unrightfully benefits those in charge. Although Dosh makes clear points about problems with the financial realities of paying players, Cassell makes the more convincing argument because he uses effective evidence to highlight the injustices of not paying athletes.

College athletics is a very diverse organization involving a lot of students, mainly as the players, and non-students such as officials, coaches and others. The leading governing body for college athletics is the National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA. College sports is itself a big industry involving sponsorships, TV networks, endorsements, retail products and marketing. But in spite of it being a big business, the players are not compensated for the work they deliver. This opens up two opinions: should players be paid, or should they not? Kristi Dosh’s article, “The Problems With Paying College Athletes”, discusses the various problems with paying college athletes, and the biggest question being where will the money come from. On

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

People love watching sports and people pay lots of money towards these players . But is it worth their life? Many people have lost their lives in their strive to go to competitions. The NCAA needs to ban any weight loss techniques or the sport will soon die out. But you cant watch what the athletes do and some diets are not deadly.