Money In College Athletics

There have been much controversy weather universities should pay student athletes. The nation is divided into two groups, financially compensating the student-athlete or not. One side declares Division I and Division II schools make millions of dollars off ticket and merchandise, therefore, the athlete should receive a salary. The argument arises when for instance in football or basketball, schools make millions for winning bowls or tournaments, which the money awarded to the schools goes far beyond a four-year education. Video games along with last names on jersey have been banned for sale since college athletes were used without receiving financial compensation. On top of this are the multimillion dollar sponsorship deals universities are making with athletic apparel companies. The other side argues student athletes receive a free college education from prestigious schools and therefore should not receive financial gains. They declare a student-athlete receives free national exposure and paying them will uneven the playing field in college sports. In addition, a student will be deducted income taxes from their salary if paid. Most imply, some of the students come from inner city neighborhoods and some cannot read or write at a college level. As a result, these athletes are assigned tutors and therefore pass the courses with ease. In all, college sports have become huge money makers, but the question arises whether an

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 athletes are undoubtedly some of the hardest working people in the world. Not only are they living the life of an average student, they also have a strenuous schedule with their specific sport. One of the most discussed topics in the world of college athletics is whether or not student-athletes should be paid money for playing sports. The people who disagree with the idea have some good arguments to make. Primarily that the athletes get to go to school for free for playing sports. Another argument is that if student-athletes were to get paid then it would ruin the amateurism of college sports. People who are against paying the athletes do not want to see the young people become focused on money. “Paying student-athletes

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.

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.

College athletic programs are among the most popular sporting events in America. With this rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue in recent years. In 2014, the NCAA made over 900 million dollars in revenue. Some collegiate coaches, such as Kentucky’s John Calipari, have yearly salaries in the millions, not counting incentives and endorsement deals. While, clearly, money is being made, NCAA regulations ban collegiate athletes from being paid. Many question this rule and argue that athletes at the college level earn and deserve pay for play. The debate to pay or not to pay college athletes rages on despite the latest court ruling supporting NCAA policies. Because colleges and universities earn such a profit from sporting events, many fans feel it is only fair to distribute some of the wealth to the players. Supporters of paying student athletes feel that these young men and women should be fairly compensated for the time demanded of the athletes and the stress put on the athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Those in favor of paying college athletes contend that athletic and academic work ethic at both high school and collegiate levels will improve, as well as, fiscal responsibility in these young adults. The NCAA argues that paying athletes would negatively affect their

While people may have the opinion that college athletes should be paid, the debate for

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

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.

These big-time college athletes receive an education that costs normal students thousands of dollars. Author of "Students Are Not Professional Athletes.", Mitchell Horace, basically says that college athletes get to graduate without the burden of paying student loans. Many normal students are unable to complete their education because of the extensive prices and would be ecstatic to not have the burden of paying for their education if they could play a sport instead. Full ride scholarships for athletes include tuition, university fees, textbooks, and room and board which allow athletes that receive these scholarships to attend the college at little cost. These scholarships allow athletes to graduate college debt free which is an amazing advantage as many students are in debt when they graduate college. These scholarships are definitely sufficient compensation for these athletes as they give them giant advantages over normal students.

They house you, feed you, clothe you, educate you, give you a living stipend, and you get to travel the world. These opportunities are priceless”. Most scholarships to universities provide you with every necessity, if not more, so what else could you possibly need? The athletes obtain their compensation with the benefits they already received from the scholarship, so allowing the players to be paid more than what the scholarship contributes may lead to mismanagement and the students trying to negotiate separate deals with the NCAA.

Kids grow up loving to play sports in their free time. They never get paid to play when they are at a young age. They do it for the love of the game and for the need for competition. This is the way that it is in college right now. College athletes compete with all their hearts to be the best they can for their schools. They don’t get paid a cent. It has been a common debate if that is the right way to do it. Should it be that college athletes do not deserve to get paid for playing a sport? It should not be this way. College athletes certainly should get paid to play.

College athletes should not be paid. “ They argue that the main purpose of going to college is to get a education, not to make money” (“Should college”...1). College is not a job, it is a place to learn. Also many college athletes receive scholarships to attend that school. “The value of the scholarships athletes receive during four years of college can be well over $250,000” (Weiss et al.1). Therefore, athletes

Majority of college football or basketball teams bring in enough money to support many student clubs and programs. Even though they bring enough for these programs and enough for themselves, what about the other teams that don’t bring in any money at all. Teams like lacrosse , golf or swimming might not earn as much revenue to support themselves and using money the bigger teams bring to give to them would not be fair Splitting money between all the teams would be hard because there is not a fair way you could spilt it. Many teams earn way more money than the others. Hruby reported that, “NCAA pocketed an astonishing $771 million in television money for its just-completed men's basketball tournament.”(Hruby) The NCAA men’s basketball tournament

Athletics in the United States are the mainframe to where people get their main source of entertainment, particularly from collegiate sports. College sports show passion, commitment, and a loyalty to a school. Players give 100% on every play because they are working towards one goal; to get to the professional level. They are doing all of this while facing the hardship of college classes, and facing the fame they get wherever they walk in and around the public place. Because of the different factors these athletes face, people believe they should be getting paid for what they are doing. On the flip side, the other majority of people believe they should get nothing at all because of the free education they were already blessed with.