Collegiate Athletes Should Be Paid

College athletes should be paid. The athletes put in as much work as the people who do get paid. Why should they not be paid? There are many pros for why they should get paid, but there are also many cons on why they should not get paid. The athletes should get paid because of how hard they work in season and the off-season. Do not pay all of the athletes, but pay the ones who are at a D1 college. The athletes should get paid because they put in the same amount of time as the pros do, and the pros get paid.

In the recent past, college athletics has gained massive fame in the United States. The immense fame of the college athletics has developed over the past twenty years. The massive development and fame of the college athletics have resulted in improved incomes for the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA). Due to increased revenue received by the NCAA, the participates in athletics in the colleges has fuelled the argument of whether the college athletes need to be paid and rewarded more than just the athletic scholarships. In this research paper, I will take a stab at to respond the question whether they should be paid by delving the explanations for and against the payment of the college athletes (Adams and Becky 108).

The System for college athletes isnt perfect, and needs to be worked on, a big problem we cannot seem to agree is how to compensate the student-athletes who drive the NCAA. I would like to start off with a question. Are college athletes being compensated enough for the effort they put forth today? Every Day they wake up early and represent their university whether they are putting in work in class or on the field. Each student-student athlete generates tons of money for their university and they don’t see a dime other than their scholarship that may or may not been renewed every year. Keep that question in mind while reading this essay, and form your own opinion.

Kim Kardashian’s ex lover is not just famous for dating a “Kardashian”; he was more famous for the controversial issue with the NCAA due to proceeds given to him for his ability on the field. Reggie Bush made a lot of accomplishments while being a college athlete. Because of his skills, he was rewarded an amount of money. While Reggie Bush was playing at the University of Southern California, statistics show that the college generated roughly fifty-five million dollars. That’s a lot of money for one athlete to bring in. Every day we hear more and more stories about NCAA investigators and colleges being punished for “paying” players. However, college athletes bring in a lot of money. Therefore, they should get a percentage whether it is a small amount or a large amount. It will depend on the athletes’ ability. While some may argue that paying college athletes to play is wrong, college athletes have a marketable skill and should be paid for their skill.

Over the last few years there has been renewed controversy about whether college athletes should be paid. The idea of paying college athletes goes back to the early 1900s with one of the first inter collegiate competitions between Harvard and Yale. The modern position of the National Collegiate Athletic Association is that athletic scholarships provide a free college education in return for participating on the university team. Many college athletes dedicate more than forty hours of training per week. College is expensive. How can we expect college athletes to pay for books and other basic necessities if they are busy practicing or participating in home games or traveling to away games? The NCAA needs to start paying these athletes to supplement

College athletes spend numerous hours every week playing games during their season and working to strengthen their athletic abilities. With long hours of practice, exercising, and games, it can make managing school work and their sport difficult to handle. According to Rodney K. Smith, author of “A Brief History of the National Collegiate Athletic Association 's Role in Regulating Intercollegiate Athletics” in the Marquette Sports Law Review, “In 1905 alone, there were over eighteen deaths and one hundred major injuries in intercollegiate football (Vol 11:9).” With a history of an abundant amount of players getting injured while playing, the discussion of paying college athletes was debated between different colleges. The issue of whether or not to pay college athletes was recently brought to attention in the public eye. In 2013, Johnny Manziel held up his Heisman trophy on the cover of Time Magazine and stated, “It’s time to pay college athletes” (ESPN).

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.

While catching up on some game day scores for college football, an article popped up on the side with a title reading, College Athletes Deserve To Be Paid. I noticed it was written by Michael Wilbon, one of the hosts from the ESPN show, Pardon the Interruption. Already disagreeing with the title before even reading it, I was skeptical, but I clicked on the link and started to read. Wilbon brought up a number of decent points throughout the article, but for some odd reason, they didn’t seem to add up to me. This is why I took the opportunity to do a little more research behind the points made in the article and came up with a concept of my own. Wilbon’s reasons why to pay the athletes don’t have a

A key point as to why the NCAA would not want to pay athletes is to “maintain the amateur status of its reputation” (NCAA Regulations). Allen Sack and Ellen Staurowsky, authors of the book, College Athletes for Hire the Evolution and Legacy of the NCAA’s Amateur Myth, accuse the “National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) of pretending to embrace amateur athletes while fighting for professionalism at the college level” (Sack, Staurowsky). If the NCAA believes that college athletes are amateurs, then why is the revenue from college sports so big? According to the NCAA, “$10.6 billion was generated from college athletics in 2012” (Koba). Of that, the average division one school received $15.8 million for football alone (Koba).

Asking wether to pay college athletes or not is one of the most heated debates in NCAA history. Although it may sound good to the students, it will arise devastating effects on society. The discrimination that might occur if we decide to pay athletes could initiate public riots or violence. The idea of college athletes being paid should be put to rest based on the consequences that would arise (Bokshan).

Although it is nearly impossible to record exactly how much total revenue college sports bring in each year, it is predicted that last year the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) made over $11 billion dollars (Mitchell & Edelman). This is an incredible amount, but no thanks to anyone but the athletes who receive none of the money, and are the only ones restricted from the earnings. But that’s not all, this $11

Within the last week you've received multiple scholarship offers from several NCAA Division I schools to play basketball, namely the University of North Carolina. Your dream of playing college basketball for a major program finally came true. Full scholarships generally cover all of the fees for tuition, books, room and board; however, they do not cover any out-of-pocket expenses. In fact, there are many instances where college athletes are unable to afford food, close or anything else that normal young adults relish. As a result, countless numbers of college athletes receive money from boosters, alumni, and agents, or illegally sell signed memorabilia to survive. A key point differentiating typical college students from student athletes is students have the opportunity to work and earn income in addition to scholarships, grants or loans they receive while pursuing a college degree; athletes cannot. Also, college athletes must participate in

College athletes, especially those who play Division I football and basketball, generate millions of dollars for the NCAA and their universities. In fact, former Texas A&M football player Johnny Manziel produced and estimated $37 million for

I have decided to research whether a collegiate athlete should be compensated for perform for his or her respective college or university. It is a highly controversial topic within my field of study because of the different views athletic authorities, administrators, athletes, alumni and future graduates have on the subject. According to "Pay to Play: Should College Athletes be Paid?", collegiate student-athletes may spend more than 40 hours a week practicing, leaving little time to keep up with academic commitments (Birkenes 4-5). Majority of their time is spent on the field or hard wood, making

With 24 college institutions make over 100 million dollars just off sporting events begs the argument on whether or not to pay the people who are making them all of that money. Besides the 24, 76% of the other 231 Division 1 athletic programs make less than 50 million per year. These programs