College Athletes Should Not Be Paid

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

Jameis Winston, Dwayne Wade, Giancarlo Stanton, and Dalvin Cook all are very big people in Florida’s sports market. They all are important to their team’s success and considered leaders on their teams. The major difference between the four players is that 3 of them are compensated for their work, but on the other hand, one which is a college student receiving a free education, isn’t paid for nearly doing the same kind of work. Many people would argue that it’s not fair that college athletes aren’t being paid for bringing in millions of dollars to the institution they play for, putting their lives in danger to play the sports, and missing tons of class to prepare for their sports games without being paid. Those who argue against the compensation of athletes would say that most college and universities don’t make nearly enough revenue to pay all the college athletes as well as saying college athletes already receive a free education with scholarships and that should be the real reason to be in college. This issue has been a debate for many years among players, the National Collegiate Athletic Association & even outside influences like celebrities and law officials.

College athletes are fun and exciting to watch each and every time we watch them. The only problem with college athletes are that they are not getting paid like they should be. Athletes give it their all each and every time they go out on the court or the field. The NCAA makes billions of dollars each and every year from championship games or the NCAA March Madness, but none of that money is sent to the players. College athletes have the right to be paid by the NCAA and the universities because they represent the product that both are selling.

“College athletes are being educated, not exploited”(Ackerman, Scott). Some people believe that college athletes are being exploited because the colleges don't pay their athletes. People think that the players should get paid since the colleges make so much money. However the money that the colleges makes shouldn't play a factor in the athletes getting paid because the athletes receive so many benefits from their college already. College athletes do not deserve to get paid from their colleges that they play for. Most of the athletes have gotten scholarships to play for that college team. The scholarships that the athletes receive include books, tuition, food, gas, fees and other college related needs. So they have no need for a paycheck from their college when all of their needs are paid for. College athletes just don't deserve to get paid because they are not professional athletes yet (CNN News) (Daily local News).

Imagine college athletes getting paid to play a sport, but technically they are not considered a “professional” athlete. It would be a terrible idea to pay college athletes to do what they are going to school for. Most college athletes get some or all of their college paid for, but they want to get paid in money too? It’s not right. They could spend the money unwisely and they could lose focus on what college is meant for and that is to learn to be able to obtain a job. I understand that college athletes have a risk of getting injured and they should get compensated for that risk. Nobody wants a student to get hurt on the field or court and lose their ability to compete and lose their scholarship, but they shouldn’t get paid to play for

Every year in the United States, thousands of collegiate student-athletes participate in a variety of different sports, and currently they do not receive paychecks for their performances. College athletics have attained an extensive popularity increase among Americans over the past few decades. This has resulted into increased revenues for the National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA] and the participating colleges, which has fuelled the debate of whether or not college athletes should collect an income. College athletes should not be paid to play because it will negatively affect their college experience. Rather, they should be compensated for their dedication to the sport. Many student athletes accept scholarships to play at a

Various people around the country believe that since football and basketball are such large sports, that they bring in enough money to pay all athletes at that college. This is simply not the case. According to Jeffrey Dorfman, a professor of economics at the University of Georgia, “only 23 out of 228 Division I athletic programs managed to run a surplus in 2012” (par. 7). This means that it would be impossible for schools to pay their athletes since they do not generate money on those

For decades college athletics have been a huge money making business and for decades the players at these universities have been the ones making the majority of it. The issue with this topic is that college athletes receive nothing more than a scholarship which is sometimes not enough. Many college athletes have spoken out about this issue and the NCAA has fired back in response. The NCAA argues that these athletes are not professionals and do not deserve payment. If college athletes were to receive payment they would no longer be amateur athletes. Some fans think it would ruin the integrity of college athletics because college athletes are supposed to be working towards making it to the professional level, if they were to receive payment for play it may tarnish some athletes work ethic. What is at stake in this piece is that college athletics make billions of dollars a year and the main attraction to the events that make the money are the athletes that play in the game and those athletes do not receive any of the money made. The NCAA does not want to pay the athletes because you cannot just pay the top athletes you must pay all athletes. If the NCAA were to do this they would lose a lot of money from what they bring in now.

Andy Schwarz, an economist, states how that rule is not in place, “Alabama spent $43 on men’s sports and $13 million on women’s sports, and they weren’t in violation of Title IX because all Title IX says...however many men you have playing sports, the money they get has to be proportional to the ratio.” With the savings of money you see the competition to hiring coaches instead of going out and competing to hire players. So the schools have the money to go out and pay the players they want but the NCAA prohibits that. “In the current system, players can’t be lured with pay, so a school comes up with secondary means of payment: a nice locker room, a waterfall in my hydrotherapy room, a promise of winning, and a greater chance of playing pro.”(Zirin 4). The problem is after the playing days are over they can no longer use that equipment, and the chances they go pro are very slim. “The BCS new deal with ESPN was based, in part, on paying more money to schools/conferences...of the $174 million distributed from five bowls games” (Wilbon). No possible way school could go bankrupt or lose other sports with that kind of money disrupted, plus the all extra money schools are shoveling in. School could not lose other sports as long as there is an interest in them, they will keep them. “The best football players and basketball players in the Big Ten have produced to the degree that a television network has become the model of every conference in

“ Let’s go,” are the sounds of crazy fans at the NCAA March Madness event with fans yelling and cheering nonstop. You can feel the adrenaline rush and it feels like a real NBA basketball game. The stage is big and the atmosphere is unbelievable. As the players come out, you can see how they feel that all their effort and time has been leading up to this incredible moment. They all seem like professionals, but wait, these athletes do not get paid. The NCAA does not pay athletes no matter how good or bad they are. I believe the NCAA should pay them because college sports are their full time job and the media will overall benefit colleges and strike the players.

Television companies, radio companies, and even video-game companies make incredible money by using these college athletes as their “employees”. In 2011, the NCAA had CBS had a deal of over $11 Billion from March Madness alone (Wilbon)! In 2016, Texas A&M made $192.6 million primarily from men's basketball and football (Gaines). This is just business! Each college needs to make its own money for there programs and the NCAA needs to make money also to put towards to athletes themselves. In fact, only 12 D1 colleges broke even or made a profit in 2011 (Bokshan). How will the other schools find a way to pay there athletes? The answer is, they

“A season’s worth of Texas A&M football games generated around 86 million” (Gregory 2). “In 2012 The texas football team had a revenue of 163.3 million” (Cheadle 3). The colleges are clearly making enough money to pay these athletes what they deserve and still have plenty of leftover money, but they are not allowed and have other rules set up to prevent any type of payment. “A college athlete was hungry so his coach bought him and his roommate tacos, a NCAA violation” (Cheadle 4 ). A coach can not even buy an athlete food without it being an NCAA violation, which is a shame considering some college athletes claim to go to bed hungry ( Mitchell & Marc 5 ).

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.

“‘I had the chance to have my education paid for at an incredible school”’ (Cooper, 12). A former Harvard basketball player, Tommy Amaker, believed that college sports are not about paying athletes, but about the chance to play the sport you love and have scholarships to play it (Cooper, 12). College athletes should not be paid. They already have scholarships. There are also many downsides and they would lose the amateur status.

Should college athletes, specifically in a division I, revenue producing sports be receiving payment from the university in exchange for their performance? This is my research question for my interview proposal. Student athletes are provided scholarships and other incentives for playing a division I sport, but is it really enough to cover the cost of their tuition and personal expenses? There is a vast amount of opinions on this issue; ranging from yes or no that student athletes should be waged, to they should be able to accept endorsements or that they should get an extra stipend if their season goes well. Particularly, men’s football and basketball are the two biggest, revenue producing division I sports in which universities