College football is more fast paced, and more interesting to watch thann over paid football players making millions to play a quarter of the year. College players are more self disciplined and a good number of athletes end up doing more than just playing football. They are executives, coaches, and teachers. College football players should not get paid to play football because of the real purpose of college and it is to obtain a college degree. The coaches have already put in their time and that is why they make the big bucks. College already get the perks just for playing football. They are offered a college degree for free with scholarship programs. People that graduate without scholarships are forced to struggle paying off all of …show more content…
Forbes says “If payment begins and there is no cap, the bidding war among colleges for some players will be hard to control. Are people ready for the few colleges with the financial resources (which would be ten to twenty schools) getting virtually all the best football and basket players? (Forbes) With pay to the coming to the student the want and drive to play in the NFL. There would not be any incentive to play in the professional league, when they are making good money in the college level. College is an amateur sport and should be treated that that way and not glorify the students athletes. According to the New Yorker says “The N.C.A.A ideal of amateurism in college athletics has come to border on farce. In the highest-revenue sports-football and basketball-the argument in favor of paying players is so searingly obvious as to seem undeniable. These athletes collectively generate tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars annually for their schools.” (New Yorker) According to the New Yorker “Paying student athletes erodes that association. If a high-school football prodigy reporter that he chose Michigan not for its academic quality, tradition, or beautiful campus but because it outbid all other suitors, a connection to the university’s values would be lost. This is not naïve idealism.” (New Yorker) The coaches at the college level are considered overpaid, but this not ture. Coaches provide the
For instance, In 1950 Bud Wilkinson earned $15,000 a season as the head football coach of the Oklahoma Sooners. During that same time period the football players were only given scholarships. This year Bob Stoops, who is the current coach of the Oklahoma football team, will earn $4.55 million (Doyel). That is three hundred times more money a season than just sixty years ago. “College football and men's basketball generate revenues of more than $6 billion every year. Yet not one penny goes toward paying the people who make the sports possible: the student athletes. It is only reasonable that student athletes have a share in the millions of dollars that their sports businesses bring in. If it weren't for them, college athletics would not even exist” (Birkenes and Bagaria). The universities, coaches, and sports companies are getting rich off these athletes and it is time for a change. It isn’t necessary that colleges begin to pay players thousands of dollars each week but just enough money so they do not struggle with finances. If someone was looking for another term for slave labor they could easily say college athlete. If universities truly care about the well-being of the student athletes then pay them what they deserve. Colleges should start reimbursing athletes for the millions of dollars the school makes off of their athletic abilities.
Only 2% are drafted into the NFL for instance, while the other 98% are getting a $200,000 education for free. There are eighty scholarship players on each of the 112 Division 1-A teams. This costs a university $16,000,000 to pay for an entire roster over four years (1 “College Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid”). With all of that money being thrown around, it would be difficult for a college to determine which athlete gets paid how much, and if one sport deserves to get paid more than another.
There has been on ongoing discussion between college athletes and the NCAA on whether they should be compensated for the work they do for their selective school. Student athletes deserve to be paid to invest in their needs, and the schools have the money to do so. College Athletes have made the case that they are no longer student athletes, but are on the clock workers. The NCAA accumulates around 11 billion dollars in revenue a year, more money than the NFL, NBA, and MLB. Many writers such as Joe Nocera, a sports business columnist for the New York Times, talks about how “The NCAA and college sports establishment exploit the players who generate the billions that the grown-ups pocket.” College Athletics’ is the school’s number one money
According to Brian Frederick, "College athletes are just as much of a big business as professional sports. It's just that the money goes into the pockets of coaches." In other words, College games get just as much money as the professional games. The only difference is that all the money goes to the coaches instead of the players. Another way to look at this is, why should we pay pros but not college player if the games are getting about the same amount of money? According to Brian Frederick, "The current system leads to corruption as coaches and boosters regularly find ways to circumvent the rules and provide benefits to young athletes." This means that with the current system college sports have, coaches and boosters are always finding ways to cheat the system and benefit young players. If we don't start paying college players, coaches will continue to circumvent the system and benefit players. Altogether, NCAA athletes should be paid because people think that college sports are simpler, but their
The first thing to address when discussing college athletes and compensation is the steadfast argument held on to by the NCAA’s supporters that college athletes receive a free education, and therefore do not deserve to be compensated beyond that. This argument does two things: it distracts from the primary issue, that college athletes are prevented from profiting off of their name and likeness, and serves as a flat-out lie. In fact, according to the NCAA’s own website, only 56% of Division I athletes receive “some” form of athletics aid, meaning that even less than that receive a full free education to go with the 44% who receive no compensation at all (NCAA Recruiting). Add in the fact that athletes are typically put into majors that will be convenient for their schedule and not majors that can offer them something later in life, and this often used argument holds no weight at all in this discussion.
The money will lead to buying drugs, alcohol, and tattoos stuff that can ruin the universities sports team and potentially ruin their careers. When they were asked about college athletics and the money generated from major men’s football and basketball programs, 66 percent of responders said athletic scholarships and a chance to get a college degree for free was fair compensation and they should not be paid and 21 percent responded that college athletes do in fact deserve to be paid for the time they spend practicing, traveling and playing, way higher than the value of any scholarships they might ever get. If college athletes were to get paid it would not only hurt players by getting into trouble but it would also hurt college football as a whole such as many division 1 schools would leave Division 1 sports and the schools that were to stay in Division 1 would have to start cutting other, less popular sports like tennis and swim to be able to afford salaries. On the competition side there would be less of it and no more national championship games. The NCAA president Mark Emmert said “He believes the customs that most college sports fans hold most dear the camaraderie of game day, the tailgating, the atmosphere of a stadium packed with nearly 100,000 fans and the pride of cheering for a university team are at stake”(Emmert) if the college athletes were to get paid. He also went on to say that “traditions and keeping them are very important to
While colleges are still using the slogan of using scholarships to wow student athletes into attending there school, society is starting to move towards a different type of feeling about colleges. Many athletes look mostly into the amount of attention they will get at a certain school and the playing time they get. College athletes are rarely worried about the academic side to attending schools in today’s society. All athletes are worried about now are getting paid and when they will. There are stories every year of famous athletes being suspended from receiving money from others for usually autographs or pictures. This leads to the fact showing how popular the college athletic world is in reality. Surprisingly, college football and basketball bring in an average of 6 billion dollars more than the NBA and NFL. (John Brill). The main difference between the 2 leagues are; some of the athletes get paid while the others get a small scholarship for a free education. Scholarships are not enough of a reward to the athletes if colleges want to continue to profit from these players without giving them nothing more in return. College athletes will begin to have no reason to come to college if they get nothing in return from it. Hard work and having to maintain that GPA requirement for the student athletes is tough and not many will want to do attend college if there is no gain in return. They should be allowed to just jump straight into the professionals if the athletes already has the talent for
“‘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.
In the article titled "Enough Madness: Just Pay College Athletes" by Allen R. Sanderson, John J. Siegfried say that the school gains large amount of revenue from television for football and men's basketball, a new football playoff system and seven-figure compensation packages for college coaches all attest to the financial vitality of the college game. Most universities have various men's and women's sports teams and the athletes on the team receive their scholarships and grants that greatly reduce the amount of money they have to spend on college tuition. However, the NCAA sets a limit on how much money in scholarships and grants an athlete receives. With all the work and hours spent by the athletes for a scholarship that doesn't offer an amount that seems reasonable for the amount of work that is put in. The revenues flowing to NCAA members and the relative low amount going to the players, who are the people most responsible for generating those revenues, has caused a growing unease in public opinion if college athletes should be paid.
“It’s down to seven seconds. You see the time…Whittenburg…. Oh it’s a long ways, Oh he’s there! They won it…on a dunk!” Billy Packer said this when covering the historical run by the NC State Wolfpack to win the Division 1 NCAA tournament in a dramatic fashion. A team with no chance of making the tournament, let alone winning the championship, does the impossible and wins the NCAA Division 1 championship. Despite NC State being a smaller school compared to the big basketball powerhouses like Virginia, UNC, Houston and many others, they had players work and will their way to the finish line. If players were paid, you wouldn’t see players like Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, or Ralph Sampson on different teams. It would be the college with the most money, could pay the best student-athletes, the most money and Cinderella stories for the most part would disappear. Dynasties of college sports would be made. Money would ruin college sports more than it already has. It has already stripped championships, ruined players images and futures, and tarnished reputations of colleges. The Fab 5, the near “3-Pete” for Oklahoma University, and the USC Trojans football team scandal, are just a few instances where college sports were affected wrongly by the idea of “play for pay.” Colleges and Universities should not pay students to participate in college sports because of all the benefits the athletes receive, the fact that the colleges wouldn’t be able to pay for other
There is always that question being asked about whether or not college athletes should be paid. The article College Athletes Getting Paid? Here Are Some Pros And Cons from the “Huffington Post” by Malcolm Lemmons argues that there is no right or wrong answer to the question at hand. However, to some the idea of college athletes being paid is absurd, while to others not so much. This article touches on many different factors from race to financial status of the players.
Not every college could afford the players they want to recruit. The uncertainty in the importance of each sport may come into to play when paying college athletes. Some players may make it to the national championship where millions of people watch them and others may not have even been televised and not won a game but they both get paid the same amount. If colleges were to pay their athletes, there would be no fair way to do it. However, people who say college athletes should be paid, they are not totally wrong. Athletes are putting their body on the line each game and they do bring in a lot of money from big time TV channels. At the same time, would schools will pay an individual player based on their talents? Some schools may not even have enough money to pay a certain player so they may lose their number one recruit. Also, if they start to pat their athletes, it may detract from the purity of the game. If the paying players start to come into play, these college sports may begin to go downhill.
College entertainment has become more widely known in today’s society. College athletes these days are bigger and stronger than there were in the past. Knowing a former athlete one might say that most people do not realize the pressure and stress college athletes face every day. College athletes, being the size they are today, make a more high risk of injury. They play a great role in university revenues depending on their performance. Sports also play a great role in our economy such as the NFL, NBA, MLB, and the NH which are professional sports that are allowed to receive a set paid salary rate making millions each year, doing the same they did as college athletes. So why not pay them? Many people do not realize the pressure college athletes are under all school year and in the summer. When a player takes on the challenge of committing to the responsibility of being part of a program and representing a university, it becomes is a full-time job. Collegiate athletes have to make sacrifices, good choices, and maintain their promises to their team and to uphold requirements of them in the classroom. Collegiate sports entertainment has been the world’s fastest revenue source in history. College sports are televised on network stations in America. College level sports bring in billions of dollars every year. Although people argue that college athletes should get paid compensation because they lack the time to pursue jobs, they are the source of most of the schools
If college students are spending their time playing these sports and not working, they should be getting paid for it. Not only are these students forfeiting their time to study, talk to friends, and even relax after classes, but they are missing an opportunity to have jobs. “Players’ relationships to the school they play for should be spelled out in an individualized pay-for-service contract rather than an NCAA-standardized letter of intent that impinges on basic freedoms” (Marx, 475). The NCAA requires that students are enrolled full time and play football to gain the scholarship offered. There is an argument by Hartenstine on this subject that “Some 15 percent played professional football as a first career, but 15 percent were corporate executives, 13