Professional Athletes' Salaries

"The student athletes will endure life long effects of playing physically demanding sports. “Injuries can saddle them with years of medical bills.” (Majerol). Athletes are there to make the college sports better, schools see them as only someone to help make them profit by making the sports program better. As soon as they leave the sports program they no longer care about the physical trauma, and mental trauma the athlete has to deal with the rest of their life. “less than 2 percent of college athletes ever compete professionally.” (Zissou). This mean 2 percent of the athletes will proffesional medical care, while the other 98 percent have to pay out of pocket for the rest of their lives on their used up knees and backs relying on medication to help numb some of the pain so they can get by. Football is one of the most taxing on the body, a study released July of 2017 says “A Journal of the American Medical Association report says

Are professional athletes overpaid? This topic has been argued for some time now. It is said that pro athletes are paid way too much money for playing a sport. On the other side, there are the ones that say that the money is fairly deserved because of their hard work to get to where they are. Should pro athletes ' salaries drop or stay as is? Do the top athletes deserve their pay?

Do you think professional athletes are overpaid? You might think they earn more than what they are worth for playing half a year, but athletes have many things which contribute to their salary. Some of these things include their earnings from endorsements, ticket sales, performance, merchandise, their social contributions, and TV ratings. Although there are many factors that contribute to their salary, professional athletes may be overpaid because as a society, we contribute to their success. So, in the end, part of the athlete’s salary comes from the people who support the sports in the first place. These are just some of the reasons why athletes are paid so much money.

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.

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 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”, (UNCLEAR)discusses where the coaches’ money come from to pay student athletes. On the other hand, Mark Cassell’s article, “College Athletes Should Be Able To Negotiate Compensation”, debates how athletes should be able to negotiate their compensation. This paper will evaluate the evidence of both Dosh and Cassell in order to determine which argument is more effective.

The magnitude of the controversy to pay college athletes has intensified over the past few years. It might be due to the prevailing economic atmosphere causing everyone, including aspiring athletes, to look for new ways to make money. It might also be due to many higher educational facilities giving the public access to their annual budget, causing outsiders to focus on the profit of specific athletic programs. However, it might also be due to the coaches’ outrageous salaries and the money that universities make from bowl games and basketball tournaments. Regardless, this has intensified the fact that athletes see none of these profits and this is what implores the simple question of “where is my portion?”

Despite devoting “forty to sixty hours per week to their sport most of the year, which is more than many full-time jobs, Division I football players aren’t considered employees and lack basic economic rights under the NCAA’s cartel restrictions” (Johnson). The NCAA made “$912.8 million dollars last year and are now poised to top the eye-popping mark of $1 billion in annual revenue” (Clotfelter). These types of figures prove that revisions must be made when it comes to paying student athletes. To be clear, “student athletes do not need salaries or monthly paychecks, even though the NCAA runs just like any other professional sports league” (Johnson). Rather than, they should simply be allowed to live within their means like anyone else in America.

Every year, there is a big debate on whether or not college athletes should receive pay for their play. The reasons and rhetoric to why they should be paid are enticing; players are the ones who earn the money for the schools, playing a sport at a major Division 1 University has the effect of a full-time job, the players are treated as slaves by their schools’ sports program. Although they exist in great number, these reasons for “pay for play” are invalid and are outweighed by the opposing side of the argument.

In the last few decades a crucial question raised around collegiate athletics and the student athletes who compete within the NCAA. Some argue that college athletes should be paid because of how valuable they are to their school, and because of how hard they work to manage both their sport and school work. However, others believe college athletes don’t deserve payment because of the many benefits they already receive due to playing sports. Therefore, supporters of paying college athletes say they deserve compensation due to their dedication and amount of revenue they bring to their universities; yet, the opposite side argues athletes already enjoy many luxuries along with their scholarships that other college students do not receive.

There is no doubt some of the highest salaries in America belong to professional athletes. Whether it’s LeBron James’s $19.3 million dollar salary with the Cleveland Cavaliers or Matt Ryan’s $42 million dollar deal with the Atlanta Falcons, professional athlete’s salaries prove just how valuable the players are to whatever organization they are a part of. (Forbes.com) In 2014 the average professional football franchise was valued at $1.4 billion and the average professional basketball franchise was valued at $1.1 billion so it’s no wonder why athletes can be paid such high sums of money.(Forbes.com) Besides professional sports American’s love college athletics, college football in particular. Drawing in an average of 44,997 fans per game

As the years have gone by and college sports attract larger crowds and generate more money, the question arises of whether or not star college athletes should be paid. The NCAA currently prohibits college athletes from receiving payment of any kind from the schools, boosters or endorsements. This is a hot topic in society because many consider the athletes to be “working” for the money only the school is receiving. However, some argue that there is a need for amateurism. In college sports, athletes work hard, but they should not get paid because the college part of the sports is what makes the money, not the athletes.

"Elite College Athletes Should Be Paid: Economists." Vanderbilt Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2015. .

In today’s society many will argue whether or not professional athletes are overpaid. In the present time athletes are being paid phenomenally large amounts of money for their entertainment. It is my claim that all professional athletes are overpaid because they do not offer society an essential function that improves or enhances our world in comparison to other professionals such as medical doctors, lawyers, and teachers. Society does not value entertainment enough to warrant such high salaries such as those of many professional athletes. There is no reason that these athletes should demand these tremendous amounts of money. This is why you have to put into question their reasoning for demanding

The passages present a discussion about arguments concerning whether or not professional athletes are overpaid. This is an important debate since professional sports represents a multi-billion-dollar-per-year industry. The two positions argue whether or not professional athletes should be paid the large yearly salaries they are paid. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration. For example, evidence suggests that people with far more important jobs are paid much less than professional athletes; in contrast, opposing evidence suggests that since professional athletes generally have short careers and must train very hard to build and maintain their skills, the higher salary is justified. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the viewpoint that professional athletes are not overpaid is the best-supported position, the position supported by the preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages. The strongest and best reasons supporting this position are that professional athletes must endure grueling and intensive training, they generally have short careers that often end in injury, and the amount that they are thought to be paid is often inflated. Accordingly, these reasons and opposing viewpoints will be discussed next.