Let 's Start Paying College Athletes

This short passage at the beginning of the book served as a transition into a discussion of the flawed systems and operations of the NCAA. At first, Nocera brought up the issue of whether or not NCAA athletes should be paid or be able to receive benefits. He believed they should

In the article “A Way to Start Paying College Atheletes”, Joe Nocera wrote about the inequalities faced by the college football players . He was compelled to began writing more frequently about how the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the college sports decisions exploit the players who generates the billions that the leaders takes advantage of. A powerful debate developed about how to pay the college athelete, a free -market approach was established by Jay Bilas, the ESPN college basketball analyst. He said that Student athelete should profit from whatever the market will bear. Some people uphold the the so-called Olympic model, in which players would generate income from endorsements, autographs, jobs and control

The argument of whether or not the NCAA should pay its athletes has been debated for around 8 years now, and right when it seems like there may be a breakthrough another reason comes up for the issue to be put on hold. College athletic programs are multimillion dollar programs and the athletes who make this revenue possible are getting the bare minimum to make it by in these college programs. Last year the Texas A&M athletic program was at the top of the NCAA revenue list bringing in $192,608,876. A third of that revenue comes from ticket sales alone, which leaves the rest to television rights, licensing and other donations. In the NCAA there are 26 colleges which are bringing in over 100 million dollars in NCAA revenue (USA Today 1). But still, Horace claims that “there is a misconception that athletic programs in general are profitable and are making hand-over fist. While truly most operate at a cost to the institution”.

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.

Proponents emphasize that college athletics is a billion-dollar industry that generates significant revenue for its institutions and these institutions should share this revenue with their student-athletes. The NCAA generated over $845 billion dollars in 2012 from their college athletes’ performances at the highest level. This can be compared to a for-profit corporation that makes a lot of money but doesn’t have to pay its employees. (Why College Athletes Should Be Paid). According to a September 2011 study, for each NCAA Division I institution, their average football player generates $120,000 and their average men’s basketball play generates $265,000, annually for athletic department.

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

The proposal of payment toNCAA student-athletes has begun major conversations and arguments nationwide with people expressing their take on it. “This tension has been going on for years. It has gotten greater now because the magnitude of dollars has gotten really large” (NCAA). I am a student athlete at Nicholls State University and at first thought, I thought it would be a good idea to be able to be paid as a student-athlete.After much research however; I have come to many conclusions why the payment of athletes should not take place at the collegiate level.The payment of athletes is only for athletes at the professional level. They are experts at what they do whether it is Major League Baseball, Pro Basketball, Professional Football,

College athletes have much more responsibilities to worry about than pros, and scholarships don 't help athletes that much and they often don’t even finish college. The problem is college athletes don 't get paid when they have twice the responsibilities of pro athletes. college athletes have to juggle their sport practices and games, being on the road a lot of the time, going to classes everyday, and going to work so they can have money to eat. The solution would be to take out of all the money college athletes make from games, and memorabilia. NCAA is a billion dollar organization and they don 't pay the very people who make them the

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, or so they say. In this case the phrase holds true, as it would be foolish to change a wildly successful college athletics system. Currently, athletes are able to earn their degree for free, while playing the sport they love, in a harmonious reltionship between amatuer athlete and college sports. Nonetheless, critics call for colleges to pay athletes a portion of the profits generated off of their services even though college athletes are already paid in the form of scholarships, free housing and other benefits. Furthermore, changes, such as sharing profits with student athletes could ruin a system that sucessfully supplies us with the ameteur sports that we love, while providing athletes with a free college education.

The third and final reason that paying college athletes is a bad choice is that it would take away scholarships. Think about it, you are already paying college athletes to play by giving them scholarships. Why would you need to pay them more to play if they have a scholarship already? You wouldn’t. Which means that scholarships would be gone all together and that’s not fair to everyone else? What about the people that are non-athletes? They wouldn’t be able to get scholarships because they don’t play sports. This would cause the student population to decrease. Lots of people can’t afford to go to the colleges they go to. The only reason they can go is because scholarships allow them to. It’s not right to

College sports is a multi-billion dollar industry. Each year thousands of high school students are recruited to play college sports, but under strict conditions. Students are required to do well in athletics while keeping up with their academics. College athletes spend up to forty five hours per week on practices, training, and games. In addition, they spend roughly forty hours on their academics. The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletics Association) does not think it is necessary to pay these athletes because they want to maintain the “amateur sport” status. According to Stanley Eitzen in his “College Athletes should be Paid, “The universities and the NCAA claim their athletes in big-time sports programs

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).

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 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.

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