Employment Contract

The National College Athletic Association, better known as the NCAA has been involved in constant turmoil for quite some time now. In the college sports world, there are two variant sides by which neither can come to a final decision. Those side are for and against paying college athletes for participation. While some agree that “coaches are paid too much for players to be struggling to buy food” (Connolly), some actually seem to disagree. Agree or disagree, the athletes deserve a resolution because the longer the issue, the longer the struggle. The two side fail to realize that their arguments and discord does

The collective bargaining agreement between the National Hockey League and the player’s association stipulates that arbitration must be used initially in order to resolve disputes relating to salary, grievances, and system. A case that did a good job of demonstrating the authority of the collective bargaining agreement’s stipulation of an arbitration clause was McCourt v. California Sports, Incorporated. In this case plaintiff signed a National Hockey League Standard Players Contract to play professional hockey with defendant team. After defendant picked up a free agent from another team, the other team proposed that plaintiff's contract be assigned to it as compensation. An arbitrator agreed and plaintiff's contract was assigned. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the reserve system and the assignment of his contract as compensation for the free agent violated § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1 (1976). The district court entered a preliminary injunction restraining defendants, hockey league, team, and players' association, from enforcing the arbitration award and from penalizing plaintiff for refusing to

When it comes to college athletics, there always will be a problem that arises. It is one of the most controversial topics there is. One of the main issues within athletics is the idea of whether to pay college athletes or not. Several studies have been done along with articles from various sources. This has been on the rise especially since “March Madness” is coming up. “March Madness” may only consist of three weekends, however, an 11 billion dollar deal is made to televise the games (Wilbon). This is when you have to take the time to sit back and contemplate whether these college athletes really are getting the fair end of the stick. Under NCAA laws it is forbidden to pay these athletes for their performance yet at the same time they

Resolved: NCAA student athletes ought to be recognized as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ever since college students started playing sports, back in 1879 when Harvard played Yale in the first collegiate sports game, the question of whether college athletes should be paid was addressed. From that point on athletes, coaches, and college administrators have brought forward points agreeing or disagreeing with the notion of paying college students. The students argue that they deserve to be paid due to the revenue that they bring for the college and because of the games they play and the championships they win. At first the idea of paying college athletes was out of the question, but now the argument has gone from a simple yes or no to a heated debate. Since college athletes are given a free education, they should not also be paid.

The question of whether or not college athletes should get paid is of heated debate in todays times. While many believe that student athletes are entitled to income, It remains undougtibly a concern of moral interest to universities across the country. This paper is going to explain the pros and cons that come with allowing student athletes the right to receive a salary.

Due to National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules and regulations no college athlete is able to receive any compensation or endorsement while participating in college athletics. These rules have long been challenged, however no changes have been made by the NCAA. With universities grossing close to $200 million a year college athletics has turned into one of the top industries in the world. The NCAA is a governing body of college athletics, but without people questioning the NCAA and demanding changes to the monopoly that the NCAA is nothing will happen to the unfairness to college athletes like it is currently.

Yet the college athlete gets paid nothing to play the game that he or she loves. When students play a sport in college, they become a part of the National College Athletic Association, better known as the NCAA. Any athlete in the NCAA is considered an amateur athlete, which means they cannot make any money from their respective sport. If athletes get paid in any way, it becomes a very serious legal matter. Most often, these cases end with the student being expelled and the university being fined. The NCAA bans their athletes from receiving payment in any way, even when sports are not involved. When discussing this issue, Craig T. Greenlee states the case of Darnell Autry, “In the summer of ’96, Autry, a theatre major who also played football for Northwestern University, was prohibited by NCAA rules from getting paid to appear in a movie shot in Italy” (67). The NCAA does allow student athletes to make money in any way. A debate has ensued. One side says these rules are outdated and need to be changed. Should NCAA student athletes receive compensation for their contributions to their universities?

Thesis: College athletes should not get paid due to the financial restrictions of the NCAA, the imbalance of competition, and the fact that these young adults are students.

Abstract:  Collegiate athletes participating in the two revenue sports (football, men's basketball) sacrifice their time, education, and risk physical harm for their respected programs. The players are controlled by a governing body (NCAA) that dictates when they can show up to work, and when they cannot show up for work. They are restricted from making any substantial financial gains outside of their sports arena. These athletes receive no compensation for their efforts, while others prosper from their abilities. The athletes participating in the two revenue sports of college athletics, football and men's basketball should be compensated for their time, dedication, and work put forth in their respected sports.

After all, these athletes are attending their respected school on a scholarship because of their talent, but what happens when that talent can no longer be used? What happens when an athlete is no longer able to share their talent due to an injury or other medical condition? In such circumstances where an athlete is no longer able to play due to a career ending injury, the individual loses their scholarship. Now, not only will the individual have to pay for a surgery, but also the rest of their tuition. According to an article in The New Yorker “Why NCAA athletes shouldn’t be paid” written by Ekow N. Yankah,"The athletes in major football and men’s basketball programs are disproportionately black, many from poor and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds”

The legal section of the paper will discuss the NCAA bylaws that prohibit college athletes from receiving benefits above and beyond what is indicated as part of the scholarship agreement. It also entails of the consequences if such bylaws are violated. In addition, the definition and purpose of the National Letter of Intent (NLI) will be discussed. Since the selling of rights is what brings in the most revenue

“The NCAA is a private, non profit association consisting of over 1000 members” (Goldman). The NCAA was founded in 1906 and is a large association representing bigger schools and universities (“What’s the Difference…”). NCAA schools are organized into three divisions, D1, D2, and D3 (“What’s the Difference…”). Division 1 schools are typically the largest, division 2 schools are smaller than D1 schools, and division 3 schools are the smallest of the NCAA institutions (“What’s the Difference…”). You cannot pay the more talented players on the team more money. This will cause strikes amongst the other teams and other very valuable players. If certain players are paid differently, it can also potentially change the athletes’ attitudes. When you pay one athlete more money than another athlete, the higher paid athlete becomes more of an individual and less of a team member. However, individualizing team members is not the purpose of any team sport. Paying more talented players more money will teach that player bad habits with their teammates and could eventually lead the player to think they are superior to their team. The only factor that could really determine different pay between athletes would be the different divisions of the NCAA: Division 1, Division 2, and Division 3. One might think that a Division 1 school would pay their student athletes more than a Division 2 or 3 school because it is a larger school. This leads to

But other side to the argument is if you have to pay a college athlete then you have to pay each athlete equally so the football team make the most money than the other college sports and that can cause a problem where if the university pay them more than soccer or basketball athlete. But that is not fair because in reality they both train equally as hard for their sport. The first order that need to be put in so we can have some fairness in argument is to be honest. If you are on a volleyball team, soccer or even the women college basketball team because of Title IX which protected girls and women from discrimination in schools, colleges, and universities. This included discrimination in school-sponsored sports. The point is the women college

It is an age old debate on whether a college athlete should be paid. It is a high school student 's dream to play sports at the collegiate level. Many people question why the NCAA, coaches, and administrators are allowed to earn large amounts of money while the student athlete’s hard work and efforts are limited to a scholarship. Others feel that is should be considered a privilege that a college athlete can earn a college degree while enjoying what they love, by playing collegiate sports. Student athletes should not receive payment because they are already receiving payment in the form of an expensive athletic scholarship and are also able to receive the new cost of attendance stipend to assist with further financial burdens.