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.
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
Colleges would have to figure out how much money athletes will receive and how they would come up with the money to pay the athletes. Colleges don’t have as much money to be paying all of the athletes so if athletes were going to be paid, then colleges would have to cut some teams. This is not fair to the athletes that worked so hard throughout their lives to get to a big school. They would not be happy to find their team was cut so a more popular sports team would be paid (NOCERA and WILLIAMS 23). Does that sound fair? The better solution is to not pay athletes to stay out of problems it would cause the college.
College sports are a phenomenon that keeps viewers coming back for more. Stated in an article on Money Nation the NCAA makes an estimated $1 billion per year and this number is still growing. What really is insane is that all that money is made off of college athletes, who don’t get a penny from that total number. The debate on whether or not college athletes should be paid has been around for decades and probably will still be here for years to come. Paying college athletes would make the teams unfair, change how hard players will work to get better, affect the amateurism of college sports, and lastly influence the athlete's willingness to participate in college sports.
After high school, some students decide to make the decision to go to college to further their education, earn a degree, have fun, and some, to play sports. College sporting events bring in money through tickets, jerseys, shirts, and other gear. The money made for all of these items and expenses go to paying coaches, the school, charities, utilities, and other expenses a school has to pay to have a sports team. Most college athletes are given scholarships to allow them not to have to pay for college or anything that comes with the college experience. Some athletes, that are good enough athletically, do not ever pay for tuition, living expenses, meal plans, books, and everything else a normal student would have to pay for. For some college athletes that is not enough. Some college athletes believe that they should get a paycheck based on the money that the school makes on putting on sporting events that these athletes are participating in. Other college athletes are satisfied with the scholarship given to them and do not seek additional money.
College sports also known as the greatest source of entertainment known to man this era. There are several types of sports ranging from non- physical to the most physical contact sports. Each sport takes sacrifice and dedication to be able to perform at your best knows matter what level. The NCAA is a million dollar business that lets student athletes show their athletic ability and skill toward other individuals. That is the main reason for the creation of collegiate sports, but not to downside the meaning of entertainment. Controversy of paying these athletes is a big deal at the moment. There have been many scandals of athletes receiving direct pay under the table that is not included in their financial aid or scholarship. Paying the
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
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.
Kristi Dosh and Mark Cassell have contrasting opinions about compensation of college athletes. Dosh’s opinion is that college athletes should not be paid because there are problems associated with it. She inquires, “The first question I ask people when they say college athletes should be paid is: where is the money going to come from?” (477). She exposed only a few colleges are turning a net profit. She mentions that paying athletes who are mostly male could cause issue with federal laws like the
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
More and more it’s discussed daily on whether if college athletes should finally be paid, or remain unpaid, this topic is very important because college sports are very popular in the United States. College athletes should remain unpaid because it wouldn’t be fair to the other less watch sports that don’t bring in a lot of revenue, it wouldn’t be fair to the female athletes they wouldn’t be paid equally, college athletes already have advantages and receive benefits, and paying the athletes would only benefit the big named universities and not the smaller schools. College athletes were all recruited out of high school to play a sport for a university of their choosing, if the athletes were good enough they would receive a scholarship, that comes with a free education, free housing, and a free meal plan. A discussed topic is should college athletes be paid because of all the hard work and revenue that they bring towards their universities, or should they remain unpaid because they are already receiving enough. In the article “Pay to play: should college athletes be paid?” Many get scholarships, which help pay for their tuition, supplies, housing, and sporting equipment. According to the NCAA, college athletes often receive grants worth more than $100,000”. (Birkenses & Bagaria Par. 8) A free education is already enough, college athletes get to go to school for free just because of their athletic abilities, which also
Day in and day out college athletes work endlessly in practice, school and work without any type of reward. Over the past couple of decades universities have attempted to get the NCAA to allow these universities to give student athletes some type of money for their work and dedication. In John Nocera’s NY Times article, “A Way to Start Paying College Athletes,” he uses strong logical reasoning and credible sources to effectively educate his audience. However, he drastically changes his tone when discussing certain ideas, by indirectly calling out those who do not believe in his way of paying college athletes.
In my prior essay, in support of paying college athletes, I made an argument of how scholarships don’t necessarily provide an adequate amount of money for the student to survive an entire school year. In many cases, although the scholarship pays for the athletes education entirely, many of the
In her article she emphasizes the fact that paying college athletes would be completely unfair to other students that attend school. She argues that the student athletes have almost everything provided for them in college and how regular students don’t have some of the opportunities that they do. She also goes on to say that the scholarship that the school provides for their athletes is payment enough, whether it is a full or partial scholarship. She also hints on the fact that being broke and having no money is all a part of the “college experience” and that everybody is struggling to make ends meet and that it everybody is working hard to make money and that a majority of the people who attend college cannot afford to go out and overindulge and spend money on the things that they want, so college athletes should not have this privilege either. Also, smaller colleges would not be able to shell out money like larger colleges could so a large school would be able to pay more for a player than a smaller college would, therefore putting the smaller college at a disadvantage.
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”, discusses the various problems with paying college athletes, and the biggest question being where will the money come from. On