Should College Athletes Be Paid Analysis

The hot topic in amateur sports has been as to whether or not college athletes should be paid. The NCAA amateur rule states that an athlete in college sports cannot be paid other than their athletic scholarship. These athletes spend a tremendous amount of time at school practice and then working on schoolwork after practice. The NCAA is an organization that oversees all of the athletes that make up the basic unit of intercollegiate sports. The success of the NCAA whether it’s through the sale of merchandise, game day revenue or NCAA tournaments that each individual sports has, despite the absolute success of these tournaments these athletes receive any monetary compensation .Some of the main reasons why the NCAA lack of payments are that it wants to maintain its amateur status and

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

College athletics are becoming more like the professional leagues except for one big issue, money. Student athletes bring in a vast amount of revenue for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) not to mention recognition and notoriety regarding the athlete’s university. However, the debate continues as to whether student athletes should or should not receive payment for playing college sports.

No one expects somebody to work two fulltime jobs and not get paid for it. Nobody would think it would be fair to work so hard and not receive any form of compensation. This is exactly what is happening to student athletes. Student athletes are not only fulltime students, but also are fulltime athletes. There are two very decisive sides to this argument. On one side the NCAA claims that the student athletes are amateurs and cannot be paid. They also claim they are paid in other ways such as a full ride scholarship to a top level education. The other side of the argument states that the work load of a fulltime student and a fulltime athlete is almost unmanageable and the NCAA is making millions off of their work and sweat. This is an issue

The NCAA definitely should share a little more with the athletes. The first and easiest argument that people use to fight against payment for college athletes is saying that college athletes get pay because they get a free education. Analyzing this statement we can say that free tuitions education is not everything that college athlete’s needs. A full scholarship in a DIV 1 university cost to the school between $25,000 and $40,000 per year which means $100,000 over 4 years, it sounds like a lot of money, but is it enough? A Full scholarship in a DIV 1 university will cover just the basic needs that athletes require. Is it fair to cover just the basic needs of an athlete who generate to the school a big revenue? For example, according to Economist John Leonard in the book Microeconomics for Today by Irving B. Tucker a star college football player generates around $100.000 per year; Joe Wyoming All American quarterback of the Nebraska State University let his University to play in the Sugar Bowl; Nebraska State University received 5 million for the appearance and his scholarship was not even 1% of the money that a football season generate for the school (John Leonard).

Why should college athletes be paid? For many people, “pay for play” is a controversial topic. Joe Nocera of the New York Times and Scott Martelle of the Los Angeles Times discuss in the following articles. Nocera wrote an article called “A Way to Start Paying College Athletes.” In the articles he explains both sides of the argument and gives a way to fix the problem. Martelle wrote “Top Tier College Athletes Are Professionals Who Deserve a Bigger Slice of The Pie.” In it he argues his side of the topic. Both of the pieces are trade articles that were published online on their respective company’s site. Nocera’s article is better than Martelle’s because he has better supporting facts and the information is more relevant to my topic.

Many different people brought up that collegiate athletes deserve to be paid. The number one supporters of paying the athletes are the athletes themselves. Each athlete dedicates over twenty hours a week just for the sport and don’t earn anything for it (Entman). The only person that truly statistically benefits is the coaches because their pay salries are based on the team’s performance. The college athletes sometimes feel used because other people and organizations are profiting by using these athete’s

Throughout history college athletics has been a source of revenue. As a result of this revenue, it’s always been debated if student-athletes should get paid a salary. According to the NCAA collegiate athletics revenue add up to some $10.6 billion a year (NCAA…). Unfortunately, some colleges claimed that they can’t afford to compensate the student-athlete for their performance. The NCAA states they are student’s first, athletes second. The term student-athletes implies that all enrolled students who play college sports are engaged in secondary, extra-curricular activities that enhance their education (Gutting). Even though the time required to put in, for practice and games can exceed over 50 hours a week. It’s a bad idea paying student-athletes a salary, but I do believe they should be able to receive some sponsorship money. Their scholarship money is towards college academic fees; it’s almost impossible for a full time student-athlete to obtain a job. A financial reward for their efforts could be very helpful to cover living expenses, medical bills and everyday necessities.

All over the world people would love to get paid for being a college athlete, which this is

The additional payment would make a college athletic scholarship even more valuable. Therefore, even more high school students would want to get one. Another argument is that the average college athlete works 43.3 hours per week on their sport. The athletes also spend about 10 hours per day on their academics. This adds up to over ninety hours a week (“Should”). There is another argument that suggests that athletes should share in the revenue that they help to bring in. The NCAA is an eleven billion dollar organization (“Should”). College sports are a business, every person that buys a ticket to go either to a football game or a field hockey game generates money (“Paid”). The athletes put their bodies on the line every time they go to practice or a game. Fitzpatrick said, “Players are entitled to some compensation because of the revenue they bring in and the risk of injury they

The debate on whether college athletes should get some type of compensation has been an ongoing one. A documentary which aired on the EPIX channel entitled “Schooled: The Price of College Sports”, shows the evolution of college athletics and how it became what it is now. With the creation of the term “student athletes” in the 1950s by Walter Bayers, student athletes were forced to give their labor for the sake of the NCAA. The term, as expressed by some of the interviewers in the documentary, is an evil term because it allowed universities and colleges to stand behind the term and neglect the student athletes. As the NCAA and the universities start to amass insane amount of revenue from the sweats of these said student

The idea that college level student athletes should be paid has been receiving close review in the last few years. Proponents to the idea of paying student athletes argue that competing at such a high level interferes with academics and that they deserve to be paid; however, the athletes themselves are the ones who decided to undertake the tremendous commitment that comes with playing sports in college. They should not be paid because they are already being paid in the form of scholarships, and paying student athletes would damage the integrity of the sport as a whole. Furthermore, paying athletes that participate in profitable sports may take away from other, less profitable sports.

The question is should college athletes be paid to play? Many people say that college athletes should be paid; But also many say college athletes shouldn’t be paid. This subject can go both ways if you ask people. As we can see there are many ways people can view this. Athletes should be paid to play sports throughout their college years.

College Athletes should be paid because they practically work a full time job. They work for an average of 40 hours a week to master their sport. Whereas, the average American works a 5 to 8 job. Salaries are based on 40 hour weeks. And not only do they work for 40 hours, but they also have to live their college life, academically and socially. Being a college athlete is intellectually demanding but also physically enduring.

The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) has come into this essential question for sports: should college athletes be paid? They say this, “Salaries undermine the purpose of college, which is an education. Student-athletes are not employees, and their participation in college sports is voluntary.” While college players may receive full or partial academic scholarships, not a single one of them are paid. College athletes should be paid because they should have the right to earn what they are worth; in this case, of course, it would be based on skill.