It Is Fair to Pay College Athletes Competitively? An Opinion Essay

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

College sports have a big market on the major school levels. These major schools can bring in 30 to 40 million dollars per year to the school through the athletic programs. The players get none of this share of money even though they are the ones who have to put themselves at risk during these tough games that provide the school profit. You may say that these college athletes are getting a free education at their choice of university but some many say they should get paid. Today as much money that runs in and out of these schools there is a huge controversy to whether or not these student athletes should get rewarded for their hard work on and off the

College athletics is a billion dollar industry and has been for a long time. Due to the increasing ratings of college athletics, this figure will continue to rise. It’s simple: bigger, faster, stronger athletes will generate more money. College Universities generate so much revenue during the year that it is only fair to the players that they get a cut. College athletes should get paid based on the university’s revenue, apparel sales, and lack of spending money.

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.

Sports have been a big part of culture in the United States since the 1900’s. Sports has become a multibillion dollar business of sort, with spots such as baseball, basketball, and football captivating americans.With american sports gaining popularity, the growth of college sports went on the rise. In 2013, The National Collegiate Athletic Association statistically generated $912,804,046 (Alesia, 2014). With all of this income that the NCAA brought in, one has to raise the question, should college athletes be paid? Even though college athletes are student athletes, they should be paid because they are practically employees to the college without compensation.

Whether or not student-athletes should be paid has been a hotly debated topic since the 1900s. College athletes spend just as much time, if not more time, practicing and devoting time and energy to sports as they do academics. For this, many athletes are rewarded with scholarship money. However, many people believe it is not enough. Should we pay student-athletes a slice of the wealth or is a full-ride scholarship enough? (Business Insider). What if the athlete gets injured? Where does the money come out of to support each athlete’s salary? The huge amount of money being generated from college sports has led some people to think that the athletes are entitled to some of that revenue. While, some think that student-athletes should be paid, others disagree for various reasons.

College athletics are becoming more like the professional leagues except for one big issue, money. Student athletes bring in a vast amount of revenue for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) not to mention recognition and notoriety regarding the athlete’s university. However, the debate continues as to whether student athletes should or should not receive payment for playing college sports.

College sports are big money makers now a days. For most universities, the athletic department serves as one of the main sources of cash flow. Athletes are used to create millions of dollars for the NCAA and the schools that they participate in, and never receive a penny. If we are talking about profit, if all bonds with the university were removed, an athletic department representing itself could compete with some of the most successful companies. So, why does the most important parts of the machine, the players, do not receive any money for their training and participation? The answer lies in the NCAA which keeps all the money and their practice of keeping all the revenue for future use. College athletes should be paid for their

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.

When it comes to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), no other topic is disputed more or has been deemed controversial than the question of should these college athletes be paid. The NCAA is consisted of three divisions classified as Division I, Division II, as well as Division III schools. Division I schools, such as Alabama or Ohio State, are in most cases the largest universities, they are also required to compete in at least 14 sports combined for both genders in an equal manner (Pretty Tough, 2007). Furthermore, these schools typically take in the most revenue as well as attract and receive the most attention from the media. Division II schools, such as the University of Indianapolis and the University of Southern Indiana,

There is an issue that continues to grow with college athletes; should college athletes should be financially compensated? Many argue that college athletes are amateurs, and should not be paid, as they receive compensation in the form of education. Others believe that these athletes produce large revenue for their schools, and the athletic sponsoring body, and therefore should be paid for doing so. There are many limitations on college athletes from the NCAA and from the school which they play for. These athletes are strictly forbidden from receiving gifts, monetary compensation or royalties for use of their likeness (Marx 474-75). The NCAA, an organization founded to control violence in college sports, keeps these strong regulations as a way to reinforce that college sports are ameteur sports . To allow college players to be financially compensated many things would have to change, including the NCAA admitting that these are professional athletes. The NCAA would have to change their regulations, and schools would have to determine a pay structure for these athletes. This is a change that should occur, but with some stipulations.

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 debate on whether college athletes should or should not be paid is a very controversial issue. Some believe that the rules college athletes must obey are unfair. These people believe that they deserve a slice of the money they bring in. For example, in a 2010 Department of Education figure on Penn State football, the football team brought in 73 million and of that spent 19.5 million on the athletes (Pappano 594). Pappano explains that they use those millions of dollars to support 29

The first thing to address when discussing college athletes and compensation is the steadfast argument held on to by the NCAA’s supporters that college athletes receive a free education, and therefore do not deserve to be compensated beyond that. This argument does two things: it distracts from the primary issue, that college athletes are prevented from profiting off of their name and likeness, and serves as a flat-out lie. In fact, according to the NCAA’s own website, only 56% of Division I athletes receive “some” form of athletics aid, meaning that even less than that receive a full free education to go with the 44% who receive no compensation at all (NCAA Recruiting). Add in the fact that athletes are typically put into majors that will be convenient for their schedule and not majors that can offer them something later in life, and this often used argument holds no weight at all in this discussion.

College sports are big business. For many universities, the athletic program serves as a cash-generating machine. Exploited athletes generate millions of dollars for the NCAA and their schools, and never see a dime. In terms of profit, if all ties with the university were eliminated, an athletic program acting as its own separate entity could compete with some fortune 500 companies. So, why do the vital pieces of the machine, the players, fail to receive any compensation for their performance? The answer lies in the money-hungry NCAA and their practice of hoarding all the revenue. College athletes should receive payment for their play to make their college experience more bearable because they create huge profits and