Collegiate Athletes: A Case Study

With college basketball and football originating in the 1800’s, the game has had much time to adapt. Over the years, the sports have become more and more popular, gaining a bigger fan base, which has resulted in substantial profits from the sale of merchandise representing the teams and players. There is one thing that has not changed; all of the athletes are still not being paid. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, or NCAA, is an organization that regulates most aspects of

When people hear of college athletics, all they think of is a game. Most people do not realize that there is a million dollar industry going on around these athletes. Eric He, a sports fanatic who writes for the Daily Trojan, states, “The NCAA is a nonprofit, tax exempt organization that just happens to be a billion-dollar industry, raking in $740 million per year from March Madness alone” (par. 7). When the NCAA is generating that much money, how can it not go to the players? It is not the

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

College athletic programs are among the most popular sporting events in America. With this rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue in recent years. In 2014, the NCAA made over 900 million dollars in revenue. Some collegiate coaches, such as Kentucky’s John Calipari, have yearly salaries in the millions, not counting incentives and endorsement deals. While, clearly, money is being made, NCAA regulations ban collegiate athletes from being paid. Many question this rule and argue that athletes at the college level earn and deserve pay for play. The debate to pay or not to pay college athletes rages on despite the latest court ruling supporting NCAA policies. Because colleges and universities earn such a profit from sporting events, many fans feel it is only fair to distribute some of the wealth to the players. Supporters of paying student athletes feel that these young men and women should be fairly compensated for the time demanded of the athletes and the stress put on the athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Those in favor of paying college athletes contend that athletic and academic work ethic at both high school and collegiate levels will improve, as well as, fiscal responsibility in these young adults. The NCAA argues that paying athletes would negatively affect their

NCAA, short for National Collegiate Athletic Association, is a “non-profit” organization which over watch all the athletic related activities on college level. In the early 20th century, President Roosevelt created NCAA because he wanted to insured college athletes from injuries and even deaths. Despite the original purpose of the NCAA is not about money, it has become one of the most lucrative companies in the USA. According to Taylor Branch, “big-time college sports are fully commercialized. Billions of dollars flow through them each year. The NCAA makes money, and enables universities and corporations to make money, from the unpaid labor of young athletes” (Branch). Besides the tremendous fortune these college athletes made for the NCAA, it is also a vital source for university entertainment, enrollment, and money. Although these athletes generate great fortune and put up great shows for society, they do not receive proper pay back. To balance the current unfair compensation system to the athletes, in addition to free tuition, college athletes should be treated as workers in a business market system and paid depending on their own performance.

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.

Colleges bring an incredible amount of money by their sport teams alones. According to John Brill, a sports journalist writer, “College football and basketball generate more than the National Basketball Association, a total of more than $6 billion yearly.” The money made from these sporting events are not being used correctly which is frustrating many college athletes. The money that is being

For example at the University of Texas an in state tuition is worth around $4,000 while out of state tuition is worth around $11,000. Now as previously stated, Texas football players’ fair market value is at $578,000 per year. So at the very least there is $567,000 per player that we really do not know where it goes. I understand that college athletes do not deserve all the money they bring in but if one really thinks about it there is no where else in the world of economics is there a person that spends over forty hours a week and brings in $500,000 per year for their institution, yet they are only compensated $11,000. The numbers do not match up. (Frommer, 2013) These numbers definitely do not match up when one takes into account coaches salaries. The average coaching salary in NCAA division 1 basketball is a massive $1.47 million per year. With Duke’s head coach, Mike Krzyzewski, making the large sum of $7.2 million per year . While Duke’s athletic director, Kevin White, brings in close $1 million per year. After looking over these stats, one quickly realizes why college athletes are not being paid. In 40 of the 50 states in the United States of America the highest paid public employee is not a government official, but the head coach of a college football or basketball team. In North Carolina the average income per household $45,570 while the tax rate is 5.8%. What this means is that on average each person in

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 of the hottest debates in the sports industry is if college athletes should be paid. If you want to pay these athletes, how would the college determine the dollar amount that should be paid? Should the basketball team make more than the football team? Should the the soccer team be paid as well? Cheerleading? Chess team? Should everyone on the team get a salary? What if your college is good at football and your basketball team is awful? Rather than thinking about these questions, the college board is just better off not paying athletes like how they did in the old days. For example, “When the National Collegiate Athletic Association was founded by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1905, the institution was devoted to the belief of not providing a salary to the college-athletes who took participated in the organization. It is based on the belief of amateurism, and it was a remarkable idea” (Meshefejian). However, The continuous growth of NCAA causes a huge amount of revenue to come into colleges and this cause controversy to whether if athletes should be paid for what they do. The opinions on this subject can be grouped into two general categories. Some feel that college athletes should not be paid because education comes first and athletes are already paid in full. Others feel that college athletes should be paid because playing a sport is a full-time job and it would make the sport more competitive. Although some

College athletics assume a large role in the entertainment industry of America. Each week, millions of people tune in to watch their favorite team, buy tickets to go to the games, or spend money on university athletic merchandise to show their pride. The NCAA and universities benefit enormously from college sports. The top 10 total revenues generated by universities were all well over the $100,000,000 mark in 2012 (“College Finances 2012”). The University of Texas tops the list with $163,295,115 total revenue from athletics (“College Finances 2012”). Last football season, Texas A&M University quarterback Johnny Manziel won the Heisman Trophy. As the first freshman to ever win the trophy, he propagated over 1.8 million media impressions which translated to $37 million of media exposure (Cook). The University’s licensing revenue jumped 23% this past year due to the success of one player (Cook). The NCAA itself generated $871,600,000 in revenue from the championship games (“College Finances 2012”). All of this revenue is impossible without the student-athletes. The NCAA is strict on making sure that athletes should be treated no different from any other student (Blias). However, the athletes are involved in a heavily commercialized multi-billion dollar industry. As amateurs, athletes remain restricted solely to scholarships as the only form

Most student-athletes playing a sport in college are there on an athletic scholarship. The scholarship is granted to them by their respective schools and is worth anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000. According to Edelman, the football program alone at University of Alabama brought in roughly 143.3 million dollars of revenue. In perspective, that’s about 2 million per player. Even though Alabama is an elite program and brings in more than the average football program, the NCAA brought in nearly $845 billion in 2011 per Sonny. Now it is obvious there many ways a university brings in revenue, but it is safe to say that a player is worth more than that $100,000 scholarship. In fact, a substantial share of college sports’ revenues stay in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches. Now think about what college athletics would be without the world class athletes it has today, or without any athletes at all. If a school didn’t “award” athletes these scholarships, there would be

College athletes are not being paid for their labor, which schools profit from. “The NCAA (National College Athletics Association) earns about $4 billion in licensing fees each year. In 2010, the NCAA signed a 14-year, $10.8 billion contract with CBS and Turner Sports to have exclusive rights to show the men’s college basketball tournament, which takes place every year” (Miller). Student-athletes are being exploited by the NCAA and there’s nothing they can do about it. Exploitation happens when student-athletes, who are making large amounts of money for their schools, often are not receiving any kind of admissible, quality education. Another form a student-athlete is exploited, the value of

When applying students must make sure they sign up for an audition to get in. “Every applicant to the Curtis Institute of Music must audition in person. Video and/or audio recordings are not considered in place of a live audition at Curtis except as noted for screened departments. Applicants to the Composition Department have original compositions examined by that department; finalists interview in Philadelphia. Applicants who wish to be double majors must audition separately for each major department and must be admitted by each faculty.” When auditioning piano accompaniment is only required for cello, guitar, flute, opera, viola, violin, and voice. Rehearsal with Curtis’s pianist is permitted. Upon arrival the applicant is given a warm up room and a time of thirty minutes. If the applicant shows up late the judges are able to decide whether to hear the scheduled