College Sports Is Not A Career Or Profession

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

Secondly, there is a major difference between professional sports and college sports. “Students are not professional athletes who are paid salaries and incentives for a career in sports. They are students receiving access to a college education through their participation in sports...student athletes are amateurs who choose to participate in intercollegiate athletics as part of their educational experience, thus maintaining a distinction between student athletes who participate in the collegiate model and professional athletes who are also students” (Mitchell). The collegiate athletes’ incentive is the access to an outstanding education. College athletes playing a college sport is not a career or a profession. “The NCAA plays a critical role in the maintenance of a revered tradition of amateurism in college sports”(Ross). This quote is laudable because

Top collegiate athletes should be able to get paid. Schools are making millions in ticket sales, selling jerseys and other venues that help out of school. However, college athletes make all the money for the college. College athletes should deserve to to get paid. “The college sports industry generates $11 Billion in annual revenues.”(Text 1, line 1) the college sports industry generates so much money, that they need to share the money and that it's selfish. Scholarship athletes should be getting paid.

But why should a student athlete be paid in the first place? Their just athletes right? They go to school just like everyone else? What makes them so special? What makes a college athlete different than the average student is the amount of revenue that they help bring to their selected colleges. This type of revenue is made up from ticket sales, merchandise, media rights and contributions. “USA today” reported that the University of Texas generated $167.7 million dollars from their athletic programs, and that’s just one school. With this in mind, imagine just how much money other colleges are making from their athletics. Sure one can make the argument that they should not be paid because they are not professionals, but one can’t ignore the fact that they are bringing in millions of dollars and seeing none of it.

Student athletes should not be paid. A misconception is that all athletic programs in the NCAA make head-over-toe profit. There are three divisions of intercollegiate athletics, and frankly division three athletic programs don’t make as much or have a profit when compared to division one programs. “Critics of paying college athletes note that only a small number of them compete in sports or on teams that actually generate revenue”. (Paying College Athletes) The truth is only a fraction of athletic programs are actually profitable, while most pose a cost to the institution. The question arises primarily in division one programs and typically in the sports of basketball and football. The argument is made that these institutions receive millions of dollars from their student athletes’ performance, in return they should be paid.

One of the most important reasons why college athletes should not be paid is that most schools just simply can not afford to pay their athletes. Maxwell Strachan from the Huffington post reported that spokeswomen Meghan Durham from the NCAA stated that only about twenty colleges make more money on athletic programs than they spend on athletic programs. This shows that most colleges are not making any money off of their athletic programs and even if a college makes a

For years now there have been the argument if college athletes should be paid to play or not. It is an ongoing debate between many people including the National Collegiate Athletic Association(NCAA), athletes, coach, and other various people. The has debate has gone far enough that a lawsuit has started over it. There are many arguments for college athletes being paid such as; the athletes do not have time to work, their images are being used without any type of pay, and how the NCAA and coaches make millions of dollars off of the players while the players do not make anything. On the flip side of this, arguments that the athletes should not be paid include; they get paid in other varies ways, the average college athletic department loses enough money already without paying the athletes, and the fact that not all college athletes are in school to become professional athletes anyhow so making money from their athletic abilities should not be an issue for them at all.

“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).

Whether college athletes should or should not get paid has been a controversial topic throughout the Collegiate Athletic Association for many years now. According to the article “My Priceless Opportunity” by Bill Walton , he believes that NCAA student athletes should not get paid because “the players entering the game know the rules going in and that they have been given a chance to make something of their lives in exchange for the privilege of being a student athlete”. Others like Michael Wilbon, author of “As Colleges’ Greed Grows, So Does the Hypocrisy”, thinks student athletes should get paid due to their hard work and labor. While I respect and admire the diligent task of being both a student and an athlete, I strongly agree with Bill Walton and the many others who support college athletes not being paid.

A topic that is very controversial for everyone is, should student-athletes in college be compensated? There numerous evidence that supports in favor and many against the proposition of paying student- athletes who play sports for their university. As a college athlete, students are putting their bodies on the line each game they play. There’s possibility of suffering a traumatic brain injury or being paralyze after physical contact. These athletes are sacrificing their bodies and physical health at an opportunity to play a game which they love, and hopefully play it in the professional level. While that’s taking place, college football and basketball are big business that keep expanding. College sports bring in a large amount of revenues. The result is that many of them fail to graduate. Paying college athletes would not ruin amateur sport because even though most college athletes do get scholarship and should focus on their education it doesn’t help them if most of the time they are not attending classes to be in practice or games. College sports do make a high-income and athletes deserve a portion of the revenue they bring their programs.

The argument of paying college athletes outside of the scholarships they may be receiving is becoming a rather popular topic. “Should College Athletes Be Paid?”, an article in Santa Clara Law written by Ron Katz, Isac Vaughn and Mike Gilleran weighs both sides of paying student athletes. They argue the point that regardless how you look at the situation, a handful of college sports have become a business. Sports such as Men’s football and basketball being broadcast on television now generate approximately $750 per year for colleges. It is acknowledged that the ones who are bringing in this money (the student athletes) are not receiving revenue from the sport they are playing. The idea of treating all sports the same was possible back in the day but today you cannot deny that one sport may bring in much more than another. Therefore Gilleran et. al. concludes that each school should be able to choose if they want to start using the business idea and paying the athletes for their work. “Alabama head coach, Nick Saban’s contract extension calls for him to make $45 million over the next eight years. His players, on the other hand, receive only the NCAA scholarships that does not even cover their basic living expenses.” (Gilleran et. al. par. 27) How is it that

Daugherty, Paul. "College Athletes Already Have Advantages and Shouldn't Be Paid." SI.com. Sports Illistrated, 20 Jan. 2010. Web. 27 Feb. 2014. In this article, Paul Daugherty describes various reasons why college athletes should NOT be paid. He gives various hypothetical, yet real situations of what could happen as well as the straight up facts of the case. He explains that schools that have created a historically wealthy background could shell out more money than other schools for the best players, creating a gap that would result in 6 or 7 elite teams and the rest would all be just average. He also explains how the current financial system for student athletes is quite enough reimbursement for bringing in the amount of money to the school that they do. This article will prove to be very helpful in arguing the negative side to paying athletes.

One way college athletes get paid centers around their scholarships. One way the college athlete get paid is because they get free tuition. According to Patterson (2017), “The NCAA says the vast majority of the money it generates goes back to the players in scholarships or some other form.” This is stating that the money the players of a sport make go toward scholarship or tuition. Another reason college athletes don't get paid is because they are on a winning team. According to the article, “Should College Athletes Be Paid?” Tiffany Patterson (2017) “While not all student-athletes are on scholarship, many are, particularly those

First, some say that college athletes should be paid because of the fact that the schools and the NCAA make billions. In an article from USA Today, it stated: “NCAA made more than $1 billion for the year” (Mama). On the other hand, they should not be paid because tons of the athletes get scholarships, they are rewarded with a free education, and they are technically getting around twenty-thousand dollars a year. First, in an article from Scholorshipstats.com in statistics from 2015 regarding the amount of scholarship money that was given out was nearly 2.2 billion dollars.

College athletes should not be paid. “ They argue that the main purpose of going to college is to get a education, not to make money” (“Should college”...1). College is not a job, it is a place to learn. Also many college athletes receive scholarships to attend that school. “The value of the scholarships athletes receive during four years of college can be well over $250,000” (Weiss et al.1). Therefore, athletes