Paying College Athletes Analysis

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

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.

One argument supporting the payment of college athletes is that colleges bring in millions of dollars every year, yet the athletes see none of the money (Ford). People who support this argument say that these players work tirelessly throughout the season to win championships which then help the college receive money, and then the players receive no payment for their work. Kenneth Cooper, the author of Should College Athletes Be Paid? quoted Robert McCormick, an attorney for the National Labor Relations Board. McCormick argues that “there are more demands put on these young men than any employee of the university. They are laboring under very strict and arduous conditions, so

THe examples were complete and seemed to give a full point of view on the issue at hand. However Thelin could’ve used more examples of current universities that have been accused of paying their players over the last year. This would’ve helped the paper because the audience reading this article will have heard about scandals and that would’ve caught their attention. Thelin presents many valid points, for instance if players received a salary, taxes would be deducted from it and they would end up with about the same amount of money that it takes to go to school. This is a valid point because the author uses numbers that are to scale and would represent an actual financial situation for a student athlete if they were given a fluctuating salary. The article is slightly biased because John Thelin is a professor at the University of Kentucky. They are known for their sports teams so he will not want the system to change. With that being said, Thelins bias does not affect the main points of his

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.

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.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and major division one programs are reeling in millions of dollars from the performance of students at their respective institutions. The athletes are compensated with scholarships in tuition, books, housing, and meals. Even though the athletes are receiving compensation from their universities, student athletes deserve to be paid because of the time devoted to being an athlete, the business behind the NCAA, and the profitability of the athlete’s own image.

The NCAA brings in millions of dollars annually and the student athletes do not get a dime out of it. Recent literature has focused on the issue of compensating college athletes. This researcher found articles and statements that led to belief some coaches and people do think college athletes should be compensated for their efforts. The researcher wanted to find reasons why critics and non supporters believe college athletes should not be paid, also to find reasoning behind those that do support. This researcher believes it is unfair to exploit these college players, and to not include them in the profits they cause.

In Joe Nocera’s article, “Let’s Start Paying College Athletes”, he argues that college athletes should be paid for playing sports. Nocera begins his article by providing an example of how some athletes will receive money that is perfectly fine while other athletes cannot accept any money or else that player will be in violation of NCAA rules. It’s evident that there are large amounts of money involved in the college sports. Top college coaches can make as much or more than professional coaches. Together with men’s basketball, College football have become huge commercial enterprises generating huge amounts of annual revenue (Nocera, 2011).

In 2012, the NCAA earned $871.6 million in revenue (Dirlam), but it is never distributed to the workforce. As it stands, the NCAA forbids college athletes from earning any compensation from participation in college athletics. Scandals surrounding high-profile college football stars who accepted payment for providing autographs have brought to light what is wrong with NCAA policy. Athletes from college football and men’s basketball deserve a piece of the $871.6 million revenue pie. These sports athletes occupy a different role on campus, the role of an employee as well as a student that female and other male athletes do not. Paying athletes’ a full salary for their participation is an extreme solution. Instead, the NCAA can solve the

College Sports starting with Football and ending with Basketball make up to $3 billion every year. All this money is then used up by colleges to improve their campus, pay the professors and the coaches. But, what about the students who work hard to gain all that money for the colleges? They get a salary, which they can not even imagine - zero. Many people around the United States believe that the student should also get paid for their effort. So, an anonymous writer writes an article to persuade the colleges in the US to pay their student athletes.

There is a reasonable argument that compensation for college athletes is necessary while attending university. However, the reason for this debate cannot be resolved in such an uncomplicated matter. College football and basketball bring in six billion dollars a year. College athletes deal with scholarship gaps that leave them

In recent years, a major controversy in the NCAA has been whether or not student athletes in college should be paid for playing sports. There are different viewpoints from different people stating if they should or not. Many people believe that they are already being rewarded enough with their education being paid, but even with the school’s help with their tuition and school fees, many have trouble paying personal expenses. Even though some people believe they shouldn’t be compensated for their hard work and dedication, it is the right thing to do, due to their lack of time occupied by sports and schoolwork. Many famous athletes in college such as Johnny Manziel and Tim Tebow bring in millions of dollars into their universities due to

Today more than ever, college sports are not just a game but instead a billion dollar business. The NCAA likes to refer to student athletes as amateurs and believes they shouldn’t be compensated while many others can argue that the players are being manipulated and exploited and deserve to be paid for play. Those who support the NCAA’s decision not to pay the players agree that there is no payment system that would fairly pay all students of all sports. They also believe that students are already being paid through their full or partial scholarships. Those who oppose these ideas believe that athletes are taken advantage of and deserve a cut of the millions they are making for the NCAA and the university they attend. The controversial

The source that will be evaluated is a scholarly article from the articles provided in Unit 4 that corresponds to the topic of paying college athletes. To begin, the article is titled “Paying College Athletes” by Justin D. Garda. This article was published in the March 2016 Research Starters Education on pages 1 through 1.4.