Pros And Cons Of Paying School Competitors

Over the past 30 years or so college athletics have gained immense popularity and has resulted in an amazing amount of revenues from the NCAA and its Subsidiaries. The debate as to whether college athletes should be paid even beyond their athletic scholarships. While reading this paper it will answer the question as to whether college athletes should be paid by exploring the reasons for and against the payments of these athletes beyond their scholarship.

Paying these amateurs does not seem too bad of an idea but it has more cons then pros. The National Collegiate Athletic Association formed in 1905 set laws stating that “college student-athletes to be amateurs in order to be eligible for intercollegiate athletics competition” (Raymond). These rules are made not to be broken and to protect. According to the NCAA “college student-athletes to be amateurs protect them from being exploited by professional and commercial enterprises” (Raymond).Collegiate athletics have changed vividly over the past hundred years. Currently college athletics generate a tremendous amount money especially football and basketball players. Students have to understand even though they see their coaches, general managers and other individual gaining money from their work they have to understand that they are working to surpass their earnings.

Secondly, there is a major difference between professional sports and college sports. “Students are not professional athletes who are paid salaries and incentives for a career in sports. They are students receiving access to a college education through their participation in sports...student athletes are amateurs who choose to participate in intercollegiate athletics as part of their educational experience, thus maintaining a distinction between student athletes who participate in the collegiate model and professional athletes who are also students” (Mitchell). The collegiate athletes’ incentive is the access to an outstanding education. College athletes playing a college sport is not a career or a profession. “The NCAA plays a critical role in the maintenance of a revered tradition of amateurism in college sports”(Ross). This quote is laudable because

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

The ugly truth behind the money machine that is college sports is that, every year, college athletes are deceived by the institutions the compete for into making them millions of dollars, with relatively little in return. Athletes are said to be given a chance to attend college and to attain a free college degree. However, research has shown that this is not completely true for two reasons. For one, the student athlete will spend most of their time in preparation for competition. Secondly, what education the student athlete does receive hardly serves them outside of maintaining eligibility just so

College athletes, especially division 1 athletes have tremendous talent in whatever sport that they play in college, this is why college coaches recruit them and make sure that they attend their university. There is some speculation as to whether or not a college athlete should be paid while attending any university. The answer is no. College athletes are not professional athletes and this is one of the main points and they should not get paid due to the fact that some are not ready for that privilege and it defeats the purpose of them going to college. College athletes are labeled as student-athletes and the first term in that name is “student”. This is for a specific reason which is that not all college athletes are going to end up playing in a professional league and attending college

College athletes should be paid to play and schools need to consider compensating these athletes for their talents based on the revenue they generate. Given the fact college sports is a big money maker for many universities and colleges, Kenneth Cooper, author of the article, “Should College Athletes be Paid to Play”?, argues that “college athletes should not be paid due to the fact they are still amateurs who are representatives of the schools they attend” (Cooper). Additional arguments made by Cooper against paying the athletes, include the fact that “these men and women are not just athletes, but students first” (Cooper). From my point of view, this statement would be true only if the emphasis were realistically placed on academics. Therefore,

Keeping the student in school wins on multiple fronts but most importantly a better educated student. So if they are getting paid it will motivate the athlete to stay in college for a longer period of

Every year in the United States thousands of collegiate student-athletes participate in a variety of different sports, and currently they do not receive paychecks for their performances. College athletics have attained an extensive popularity increase among Americans over the past few decades. The result - increased revenues for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA); therefore, the participating colleges are fueling the debate of whether or not college athletes should collect an income. College athletes should not be paid to play because it will negatively affect their college experience. Rather, they should be compensated for their dedication to the sport. Many student athletes accept scholarships to play at a college or university, which allows the student to attend the school for free. This is fair compensation to the athlete as a college education today can cost as much as $20,000 to even $50,000 at some higher level schools. Essentially, they earn a free education and in return they have the opportunity to represent their school in a particular sport. Furthermore, athletes will begin to feel like they are playing at a professional level and that is exactly what they are not.

With the help of an army of tutors they can merely try to stay eligible. There’s no reason for them to try to complete the work they are unprepared for anyways because it has nothing to do with their career aspirations.” His quote basically shows that athletes don’t need courses and classes because most of the time they are at competitions and mostly care about getting professional not about studying for the next math exam. Another argument presented by most supporters of the opposition is that college athletes shouldn’t be paid because they receive world class amenities and training to be professional. to support this claim Ricky Burton from US News states “But even removing this educational asset from the equation, NCAA Division I athletes still receive expert coaching (that could lead to a professional career as an athlete or as a coach), on-campus housing, frequent meals (if not elaborate training tables), non-uniform clothing, free medical consultation, free access to state-of-the-art training facilities and free professional development (media/public relations, life skills, networking, etc.). That all has to count for something, right?”. However, many athletes regardless of the value of money they are getting from these amenities many athletes live in poverty according to a research done by the NCPA

The first thing to address when discussing college athletes and compensation is the steadfast argument held on to by the NCAA’s supporters that college athletes receive a free education, and therefore do not deserve to be compensated beyond that. This argument does two things: it distracts from the primary issue, that college athletes are prevented from profiting off of their name and likeness, and serves as a flat-out lie. In fact, according to the NCAA’s own website, only 56% of Division I athletes receive “some” form of athletics aid, meaning that even less than that receive a full free education to go with the 44% who receive no compensation at all (NCAA Recruiting). Add in the fact that athletes are typically put into majors that will be convenient for their schedule and not majors that can offer them something later in life, and this often used argument holds no weight at all in this discussion.

Anderson, Dave. "Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Be Paid." Top 10 Lists | ListLand.com. N.p., 09 July 2016. Web. 28 Feb. 2017. With college comes responsibilities, and getting a job would be one of them, but playing a sport is a privilege. Dave Anderson, columnist, states that, “There is just no fair way to pay college athletes.” There are many sports programs that bring in different amounts of money. Is it fair to only pay for basketball and football programs, but not lacrosse, tennis, or volleyball? How do you begin to rate who gets paid and how much they get paid? Many college athletes say that they do not get enough funding for new materials and practice gear. On the contrary, most of the time when athletes ask for new gear they receive it through donors or college

Some say college student-athletes should not be paid argue that they receive scholarships as a form of payment for their talents. (4) Others might say that being a college student-athlete is a full-time job, bouncing between the weight room, the court/field, classes, and film sessions. (4) Some of these extracurricular activities cause the students to miss class, and make millions of dollars for the league. (4) Since some of these student-athletes are making money for a place, missing school while doing it, they should surely make something off of

In the professional leagues or sporting activities, sportsmen get pay for their efforts and talents in entertaining the public. Sports acts as a source of income to the participants in the league. It is a different scenario when it comes to NCAA management league. Students do not obtain pay for their services, efforts, talents, and entertainment show to the public. College athletes display their talents to the entire public who enjoy watching them perform. Some scholars argue that students should obtain pay for their efforts and talents while others maintain that college athletes should be contented with what they have as participants. College athletes' payment issue drags the development of the game within the association (NCAA). The debate of whether college athletes should obtain payment for their services needs to rest by extensive solution. The perfect way to solve the issue at hand involves additional payment for the services of the college athletes. This would supplement the scholarships and accommodation fees university and college athletes enjoy currently. College athletes are not gaining payment for participation in the NCAA league because of benefits they acquire from colleges, the act would add to issues in the budget that colleges would not be able to afford. College athletes should obtain payment for their talents and efforts because everyone in the sporting career enjoys payment and wages, to satisfy their needs as human

In order to justify the compensation of college athletes we must look at the current programs in place. Right now college athletes are spoon-fed an education, giving them a distinct advantage over other students. Universities provide them with free private tutors and review sessions to help further compensate for their time on