Debating College Athletes' Payment Issue

Over the past 30 years or so college athletics have gained immense popularity and has resulted in an amazing amount of revenues from the NCAA and its Subsidiaries. The debate as to whether college athletes should be paid even beyond their athletic scholarships. While reading this paper it will answer the question as to whether college athletes should be paid by exploring the reasons for and against the payments of these athletes beyond their scholarship.

College sports are one of the largest and fastest growing markets in today’s culture. With some college sports games attracting more viewers than their professional counterparts, the NCAA is one of the most profiting organizations in America. Recently there has been controversy in the world of college sports as to whether the college athletes that are making their universities and the NCAA money should receive payment while they are playing their respective sport. Many believe that these athletes should be paid. Others argue that they are already receiving numerous benefits for playing that sport from their universities. Many of the proponents of paying college athletes are current or former college athletes who believe their hard work and hours put into practice and competing go under appreciated. They feel that while the athletes are making the university money, the athletes do not receive any cut of these profits. Opponents feel that athletes already receive numerous perks and should not receive extra compensation on top of the perks they already receive.

Do you want to get paid for playing a sport in college? (http://www.experienceproject.com/question-answer.php) College players should receive some payment for playing for their schools. College athletes put their bodies on the line each game they play, paying college athletes would help to begin creating a sense of financial awareness, (https://smartasset.com/retirement/should-student-athletes-be-paid ) and some athletes don't have enough money to pay for food or stuff they need and with the money they have left over they can buy things.

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.

Should college student-athletes be paid has become a much debated topic. The incentive for a student-athlete to play a college sport should not be for money, but for the love of the game. It has been argued that colleges are making money and therefore the student-athlete should be compensated. When contemplating college income from sporting events and memorabilia from popular sports, such as football and basketball, it must not be forgotten that colleges do incur tremendous expense for all their sports programs. If income from sports is the driving factor to pay student-athletes, several major problems arise from such a decision. One problem is who gets a salary and the second problem is how much should they be paid. Also, if the income

College athletics is a very diverse organization involving a lot of students, mainly as the players, and non-students such as officials, coaches and others. The leading governing body for college athletics is the National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA. College sports is itself a big industry involving sponsorships, TV networks, endorsements, retail products and marketing. But in spite of it being a big business, the players are not compensated for the work they deliver. This opens up two opinions: should players be paid, or should they not? Kristi Dosh’s article, “The Problems With Paying College Athletes”, (UNCLEAR)discusses where the coaches’ money come from to pay student athletes. On the other hand, Mark Cassell’s article, “College Athletes Should Be Able To Negotiate Compensation”, debates how athletes should be able to negotiate their compensation. This paper will evaluate the evidence of both Dosh and Cassell in order to determine which argument is more effective.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has been rewarding University athletic programs across the nation for many years now. Allowing coaching staff and others to make money off of the athletes in these programs. Athletes, however, do not get any compensation for the hard work they put in to earn the National Collegiate Athletic Association the multi- million dollars of revenue each year. The athletes are expected to give an “all in” type effort while keeping up with their rigorous courses. A recent ruling that Northwestern University football players have the right to unionize and begin to receive that compensation from the NCAA proved many people wrong and stirred up the pot between supports and non supporters.

Since its inception in 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, commonly known as simply the NCAA, has pondered the burning question of whether student-athletes should be compensated for their play. Currently, the NCAA employs an amateurism policy, an eligibility regulation that all potential Division I athletes must abide by to participate in their respective sports. This set of rules prohibits players from receiving any form of compensation, whether that be as a result of participating in a sport, being awarded prize money, or signing with an agent. Athletes are allowed to accept financial aid administered by the university, but this generally small subsidy for education is accompanied with uncertainty, and is the only form of “payment” they are permitted to collect. However, there is sufficient evidence that college athletes should be paid as compensation for the money they make for the NCAA, the negative effects that sports have on the players ' lives, the benefits that the sports bring to the school, and for the potential profits missed on social media because of NCAA regulations.

In the last few decades a crucial question raised around collegiate athletics and the student athletes who compete within the NCAA. Some argue that college athletes should be paid because of how valuable they are to their school, and because of how hard they work to manage both their sport and school work. However, others believe college athletes don’t deserve payment because of the many benefits they already receive due to playing sports. Therefore, supporters of paying college athletes say they deserve compensation due to their dedication and amount of revenue they bring to their universities; yet, the opposite side argues athletes already enjoy many luxuries along with their scholarships that other college students do not receive.

The NCAA is a multi-billion dollar industry that generated over $845 billion last year due to their players’ ability to entertain and perform to their fullest extent at all times. So with all of this money flowing in, why wouldn’t they provide their athletes a stipend? Well that’s a question that today baffles many. What they basically have in place is a corporation that makes tons of money and, oh yeah, they don’t have to pay their employees. Sounds like the perfect business model right? What has continued to be one of the most pressing issues in the world of sports today has now become a matter the NCAA can no longer afford to ignore. The service that college athletes provide to the institutions they attend in addition to millions of spectators all over the world is still not being rewarded in the manner that it should be for their above-average dedication, work ethic, and most importantly money brought in to their employer.

Over the course of the past few decades, college athletics have drastically increased in popularity throughout the United States. Television channels, news stations, and live-stream broadcasting websites have made viewing college sports more accessible. With the increased fan base, many people have debated over the issue of whether college athletes, specifically Division I recruits, should be compensated for their contribution to the university. Intercollegiate sports provide a crucial amount of the institution’s revenue, as well as attract prospective high school students to attend. Yet with this surplus of income, no athletes are compensated for their participation within an athletic program. Written within the National Collegiate Athletic Association rules and regulations, it states that athletes are not allowed to participate in any athletic competition if they have ever been paid, or promised to be paid, by their respective institution (NCAA). This sanction enforced by the NCAA has been a topic of debate for years as many avid sports fans provide key examples of the benefits that paying athletes would have on the school and the environment of college athletics as a whole. As a college athlete myself, I support the other side of the argument, in congruence with the NCAA, because I have first-hand experience with the responsibilities and time-management that a student-athlete at the college level requires.

College athletes are taken advantage of on a daily basis. Student athletes have to spend all day in class having to meet vigorous academic requirements well also having to stay competitive in sports. For doing so much you think the NCAA would at least give them some money to live off. When students have no money they are more likely to sell their autographs or take money from boosters. When students accept money from boosters it not only affects the player but it affects the team. Some ways that it affects the whole team is by reducing the amount of scholarships a team can give out that year. It could also affect their college playoff hopes by not allowing them to participate in their college bowl games.

All around the world sports are the topic of discussion, both teams and athletes bring forth millions of viewers to see what a sports team is made up of. College is where a student gets the opportunity to shine. If a college athlete possesses a significant amount of talent they have the potential to become a professional. At a college level, students don’t receive payment; regardless of what level an athlete is on, when an individual has a natural talent the individual should be paid for doing what he is good at. This idea of not paying student athletes needs to change because these student athletes have become involved in a craft and deserve compensation for their involvement. Three key elements that is discussed in this essay will give probable cause for athletes to be compensated. The three factors that are analyzed in this essay is the commitment of time that a player sets into his or her sport, the large debt accumulated while in school, and the amount of money colleges earn through student athletes. All three aspects are valid reasons as to why colleges must start paying their athletes.

Recently, the topic around college sports has been whether or not college athletes should be paid. Many student athletes have threatened to unionize and have demanded to be paid, for everything from video game royalties and jersey sales, to their god given ability. College sports have become extremely profitable throughout the years, but the athletes who perform all the spectacular dunks and jukes that keep us wanting more, see none of that money. College athletes should be paid as there are many benefits that would come with it.

In the professional leagues or sporting activities, sportsmen get pay for their efforts and talents in entertaining the public. Sports acts as a source of income to the participants in the league. It is a different scenario when it comes to NCAA management league. Students do not obtain pay for their services, efforts, talents, and entertainment show to the public. College athletes display their talents to the entire public who enjoy watching them perform. Some scholars argue that students should obtain pay for their efforts and talents while others maintain that college athletes should be contented with what they have as participants. College athletes are not gaining payment for participation in the NCAA league because of benefits they acquire from colleges, the act would add to issues in the budget that colleges would not be able to afford.