Pros And Cons Of College Athletes Being Paid For Athletes

Thousands of 18-21 year olds slave away for 60 hours or more every week. They are expected to work tirelessly hard to pass classes but at the same time dedicate most of their time to athletics. College athletes are used to create a billion dollar business, industries rely on them constantly working away and receive little to no compensation. College athletes should be compensated for being the working force behind a multi billion dollar industry and receive little to no payment for their time, while at the same time have to pass college classes.

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

Joe Posnanski, a sports journalist and former columnist for Sports Illustrated, weighed in on the controversial issue of college athletes receiving money as a service of their play. “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid” published 2011 from the Norton Sampler starts off by introducing one of his main arguments that “College athletics are not about the players” (Posnanski 585) but instead are about the alumni and the colleges themselves that people support. If player on a team left and made their own team would that colleges alumni now support their semi-pro team, no chance. College Supporters love the youthful feeling and the how close they feel too it. He shows how big time college athletes do get paid in tuition, room and board, food,

Every year, thousands of student athletes across the world sign the NCAA’s 08-3A Form, also called the “Student-Athlete” form, which waives their right to receive money for the use of their name and image. Like many of us in this class, these college athletes devote their time to their academics while spending additional hours with training and practices throughout the day and receive no stipend in return. This 08-3A form defines college athletes as amateurs, who cannot receive payment for playing their desired sport. While their schools and coaches may make millions of dollars in salaries and endorsement deals and are the highest-paid public employees in many states due to their performances in their desired sport, these “amateurs” can never

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

The price for college is a huge sacrifice that many families end up taking for their child. For athletes, many receive scholarships or are granted money to attend college, but the sacrifice they have to deal with is much larger than money itself. However, many of these athletes’ superiors argue that it's their choice to sacrifice their bodies, and that they’re just student athletes they don’t deserve to be paid. The people who end up stating these claims are the people who end up making millions off of them and who pay their coaches millions in return. Of course they’re college athletes, but college sports have never fell from the public eye and are just as popular as professional sports, and just as profitable. The problem with college sports

“Here’s Why We Shouldn’t Pay College Athletes” written by John R. Thelin, illustrates how collegiate players should be prohibited from earning any funds from universities or private agents because they already receive a great amount of grants and scholarships based on their ability in a certain field. The author touches on the scholarship model vs the salary model, he leans slightly towards the scholarship model by using the example of how taxes play into the situation if a player captures a salary. Also Thelin states that student athletes should have something to look forward to in the professional leagues, a large income does just the trick. Furthermore, the reaction I had when I read John Thelin’s statements included that he is one hundred percent spot on with his perception that participants in college activities are already getting their schooling for free. As well as the idea that these

A topic that is very controversial for everyone is, should student-athletes in college be compensated? There numerous evidence that supports in favor and many against the proposition of paying student- athletes who play sports for their university. As a college athlete, students are putting their bodies on the line each game they play. There’s possibility of suffering a traumatic brain injury or being paralyze after physical contact. These athletes are sacrificing their bodies and physical health at an opportunity to play a game which they love, and hopefully play it in the professional level. While that’s taking place, college football and basketball are big business that keep expanding. College sports bring in a large amount of revenues. The result is that many of them fail to graduate. Paying college athletes would not ruin amateur sport because even though most college athletes do get scholarship and should focus on their education it doesn’t help them if most of the time they are not attending classes to be in practice or games. College sports do make a high-income and athletes deserve a portion of the revenue they bring their programs.

Remy, D. (2012). Why the New York Times ' Nocera is wrong. NCAA News, 5.

Kristi Dosh and Mark Cassell have contrasting opinions about compensation of college athletes. Dosh’s opinion is that college athletes should not be paid because there are problems associated with it. She inquires, “The first question I ask people when they say college athletes should be paid is: where is the money going to come from?” (477). She exposed only a few colleges are turning a net profit. She mentions that paying athletes who are mostly male could cause issue with federal laws like the

LeBron James makes 19.07 million dollars a year, Kobe Bryant makes 30.45 million a year, Peyton Manning makes 18 million dollars a year, the average college athlete makes no money at all. Why do college athletes that put in just as much work get paid differently? This is the way many people feel about NCAA's decision to not pay college athletes. There are always people who think teams should pay their athletes but there are just as many who people who disagree. Paying college athletes continues to be a huge debate in the sports world there are pros and cons for both and both need to be considered in the big decision that the NCAA has to make.

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.

In the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia’s definition of “Amateur” it states, during the early 20th century “the American intercollegiate athletic system… adopted amateurism, claiming it developed competitors who were morally superior to professionals” (“Amateur”). Amateurism is the concept that athletes should compete without payment. Until recently, playing collegiate sports as an amateur was thought to be a noble calling. As time surpassed, college sports became a commercialized industry, generating billions of dollars in revenue. When this became apparent, the implementation of athletic scholarships became more relevant. The athletic scholarship seemed to be a more than fair way to delight athletes with some sort of incentive to ensure

How have sports changed to the point where there is serious discussion around paying college athletes? Universities and athletic coaches make millions on the backs of their players. So the question is, are our college athletes properly compensated? After reading both articles by Paul Marx and Warren Hartenstine I have come to the conclusion that college athletes should not be compensated beyond their athletic scholarships. Many students are fully compensated for tuition, room and board, books and private tutors. These services are valuable in countless ways. They allow students to pursue both their athletic and academic dreams. Further compensating college athletes would lead to an unfair advantage and is unjust to other students.