Pay For Play, What A Conundrum !

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.

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

In his article “The Shame of College Sports,” Taylor Branch (2011) describes how universities are focused on advancing and receiving money from major athletics and having star athletes, but how the universities are not caring for the “student athlete.” The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has made college sports into an unmerited business. However, as years progress more athletes are getting smart and are taking the NCAA to court. The more students that challenges the rules by the NCAA and take them to court, the secrets and undermining values of the NCAA come out and the closer the NCAA comes to an end.

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 athletes should receive some sort of payment for playing for their college. Many people believe that college athletes should be paid financially, because they are considered to be taken advantage of by the NCAA and most other school systems, because they should receive pay. Most college athletes are the main reason for huge profits from many merchandise sales; live events such as the game itself, and media and live coverage also provide sales increases. Differently from the professional sports, the athletes don’t get any type of cut. College teams may not have the same national expectations as the professional ones, but they are just as important, if not, even more important than professional athletes. Millions of dollars of merchandise,

If the NCAA decided to pay college athletes, it would create more problems than solutions. For example, if student-athletes are offered a salary, most likely the cost of school tuition will go up because the money paid to the student-athletes must come from somewhere and the revenue from sporting events and memorabilia will not be enough to cover all student-athlete salaries as well as expenses to run all the college’s sports programs. In addition, not all college sports draw the same fan base and therefore, income is greatly varied between sports programs which in turn will create an unfair balance when determining the salary for each student-athlete. All student-athletes regardless of which sport they are participating would expect equal pay.

Furthermore, where should the money come from? Is it the responsibility of the school to pay these athletes or the NCAA? Other questions include how much should students-athletes be paid, how often, will it work in a similar way that professional contracts work, etc.? All these questions reveal how difficult it would be to change the college athletic system to compensate college athletes. Regardless of what number of individuals feels that athletes ought not to be paid for their ability, there is pretty much the same number of individuals whom feel they ought to. There are numerous reasons why individuals think a student athlete ought to be adjusted. Some of those reasons incorporate; individuals feel that frequently the college utilizes these athletes as boards for their school. Additionally, the universities are "offering the athletes' names and achievements for the schools own acknowledgment. “Athletic organizations are utilizing college athletes to offer their items, along these lines the athletes ought to see a portion of the money that is earned. It has even been demonstrated that promoting through understudy athletes extraordinarily impacts more youthful

College sports has become extremely popular over the past few years. With the March Madness tournament held in March and the new College Football Playoff held in January, the NCAA has achieved a great deal of attention and high television ratings. Although colleges make tons of money off of their athletes, college athletes receive plenty of compensation. Paying student athletes would cross the line between professionalism and amateurism and would violate the essence of being a student athlete.

But why should a student athlete be paid in the first place? Their just athletes right? They go to school just like everyone else? What makes them so special? What makes a college athlete different than the average student is the amount of revenue that they help bring to their selected colleges. This type of revenue is made up from ticket sales, merchandise, media rights and contributions. “USA today” reported that the University of Texas generated $167.7 million dollars from their athletic programs, and that’s just one school. With this in mind, imagine just how much money other colleges are making from their athletics. Sure one can make the argument that they should not be paid because they are not professionals, but one can’t ignore the fact that they are bringing in millions of dollars and seeing none of it.

Not only do different college sports bring in vastly different amounts of revenue, but different athletes on individual teams bring in vastly different amounts of revenue. Due to these differences, it is impossible to make a determination as to how funding would be allocated. William Jung Texas Christian University, 3 May 2013 explains Different athletes, even on the most profitable sports teams, bring in vastly different levels of revenue economics research articles have estimated the marginal revenue product (MRP) of a student-athlete in major college sports. The most recent study finds that the median MRP was about $44,000, which exceeds the average value of a scholarship, and that the mean MRP was over $91,000. For the best players, MRP exceeds $1,000,000. Dan Duggan New Jersey LLC., 10 March 2015 explains the impact of this which is Due to the necessity of providing equal pay for all players, it becomes logistically impossible to equitably compensate athletes. but as far as flat-out paying them, I just think that’s

The argument of paying college athletes outside of the scholarships they may be receiving is becoming a rather popular topic. “Should College Athletes Be Paid?”, an article in Santa Clara Law written by Ron Katz, Isac Vaughn and Mike Gilleran weighs both sides of paying student athletes. They argue the point that regardless how you look at the situation, a handful of college sports have become a business. Sports such as Men’s football and basketball being broadcast on television now generate approximately $750 per year for colleges. It is acknowledged that the ones who are bringing in this money (the student athletes) are not receiving revenue from the sport they are playing. The idea of treating all sports the same was possible back in the day but today you cannot deny that one sport may bring in much more than another. Therefore Gilleran et. al. concludes that each school should be able to choose if they want to start using the business idea and paying the athletes for their work. “Alabama head coach, Nick Saban’s contract extension calls for him to make $45 million over the next eight years. His players, on the other hand, receive only the NCAA scholarships that does not even cover their basic living expenses.” (Gilleran et. al. par. 27) How is it that

This could solve the problem with some players not having enough money to live. According to College Student Journal, 54% of college students said that student athletes should be paid for their services, but if they were to get paid, colleges might have to increase tuition and fees in order to get enough money to pay the athletes (Schneider, 2001). Some people say that paying college athletes will reduce the amount of illegal payments to the athletes. That is not necessarily true, because illegal payments still could occur to ensure that an athlete will complete a task. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) makes around $100 million per year (Edelman, 2013, P.61). Some people might say that it is wrong for the NCAA to not give any money to the athletes that make most of the money for them, but it is against the rules to pay them. If colleges were to pay students, the college trying to get a student to attend their school in order to play football would have to offer more money than several different colleges, in order to intrigue the student into going to that college (Kisska-Schulze, 2014, P.32-34). There is a difference between a professional sport and a college sport. “The difference between a purely commercial model (professional sport) and the educational model is the purpose for generating revenue: in a commercial entity, the purpose is to make a profit,

The idea of paying college athletes to compete is not new, unlike most people think. This debate has been around since the 1800’s. The college sports industry makes about $11 billion in annual revenues. Fifty colleges report annual revenues that exceed $50 million. Nationally in 2010-11, the top 15 college basketball programs generated roughly $293 million, less than a third of what the top 15 football programs generated, baseball makes very little money compare to basketball and football according to Jeffrey Dorfman. These revenues are coming from multiple sources, such as ticket sales, sponsorship, and broadcasting rights. The National Collegiate Athletic Association recently sold broadcast rights to its annual men 's basketball tournament for upwards of $770 million per season. At the University of Alabama, the head football coach, Nick Saban, recently signed a contract paying him $7 million per year; more than 91 times the average wage of an Orange County public school teacher. However, the facts I have mentioned so far concerns football only. Football and basketball are the biggest sources of athletic revenues in the majority of universities. So with all this money involved, should student athletes get a percentage of the revenue their sport brings to the university?

The “contradiction at the heart of big-time college football,” as Michael Oriard describes it, is the competing demands of marketing and education. The 1890s proved to university administrators that there was an enormous market for collegiate football, which postulated opportunities for university building. Since this ubiquitous realization, there has coincided this blatant, yet unchanging contradiction that academic institutions are permitted to profit off of the services provided by its student-athletes while the athletes must idly accept that they are amateurs, donating their efforts to their respective schools. The schools then direct this revenue toward strengthening their athletic departments, and thus continues this seemingly endless growth of big-time college sports, all while athletes remain uncompensated and academics continue to take a backseat.

There has been amplified debate on the treatment, education, training of the college athlete. To avoid exploitation of athletes, “The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), formed in 1905, set bylaws requiring college student-athletes to be amateurs in order to be eligible for intercollegiate athletics competition” (Schneider n.p.). Intercollegiate athletics have dramatically changed over the last several decades. Currently, intercollegiate athletics generate tremendous amounts of revenue, remarkably in football and basketball. College sports in America is a