Gene Goldston
Brian Hance
English 12
01/28/15
Should College Athletes Be Paid?
College sports are a highly paid business. It is produced sold just like all other commercial products. The NCAA generated over $70 million in the basketball tournaments. Schools who made it to the finale instantly earned over $1.3 million. $275 thousand was given to those who were invited to the tournament. Football is just the same. The (1988-89) seasons produces $53 million and $66 million and was split between all participating schools.
College athletes should receive some form of compensation for their efforts because, TV revenue, coach salary, and risk to players and their careers.
Television and radio gave even more to NCAA schools. Schools used money
…show more content…
Most of the time the decision made by the NCAA is dis-liked and undesired by most.
Stanley Eaten has compared the system to indentured servitude or a “plantation system. Concerning the revenue sports of men’s basketball and football, the players should be entitled to some monetary compensation for their work, as well as the right to enter the professional leagues at an age that suits their abilities. A key point as to why the NCAA would not want to pay athletes is to maintain the amateur status of its reputation.
Some people agree with his opinion on when they get to enter into the pro league. Athletes should be able to choose how they feel, and if they want to get strait to the league or go to college. If they choose to go to college they should have the right to choose how long they go and when they go to the league. That said, if they choose to do that they should be paid depending on if they actually go to on to the NFL, and pay back what they were paid.
Some have said that being an amateur status is to say they do it for fun not for remuneration. The NCAA has tried to keep it that way, but over the years many things have changed. The idea of capitalist benefits and amateurism within the NCAA does not mix. A NCAA basketball tournament will earn up to $770 million. The reason this exist is because the student athletes are not reaping any of the benefits.
Huge TV rights and commercialization have corrupted the
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
The NCAA has been around and evolved since the beginning of college sports. This organization is a non-profitable organization, but ironically makes more than millions of profit per year. Branch states “that money comes from a combination of ticket sales, concession sales, merchandise, licensing fees, and other sources—but the great bulk of it comes from television contract”(pg. 228). Meanwhile, the student-athletes do not receive any of this money. This is the start of an unsubstantial business between universities built around amateurism.
The National College Athletic Association, better known as the NCAA has been involved in constant turmoil for quite some time now. In the college sports world, there are two variant sides by which neither can come to a final decision. Those side are for and against paying college athletes for participation. While some agree that “coaches are paid too much for players to be struggling to buy food” (Connolly), some actually seem to disagree. Agree or disagree, the athletes deserve a resolution because the longer the issue, the longer the struggle. The two side fail to realize that their arguments and discord does
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.
Throughout the years college sports have been about the love of the game, filled with adrenaline moments. However, the following question still remains: Should college athletes get paid to play sports in college? Seemingly, this debate has been endless, yet the questions have gone unanswered. The National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) plays a vital role in this debate. The NCAA is a billion dollar industry, but yet sees that the athlete should get paid for their hard work and dedication.
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.
Have you paid attention to all of the news that has been surfacing about collegiate sports lately? It is a big topic now days in the world of sports on weather college athletes should be getting paid to play sports. College athletics have gained great popularity of the past few decades, and have brought schools lots of revenue. A lot of college athletes think they should be getting paid for their services they do for their school. College sports like basketball and football generate over six billion dollars a year, but none of it goes to the athletes. Athletes should be paid for all of the time and dedication they put forth to their sport and the effort they put towards school to be eligible to play, athletes should get paid for all the money they bring to their school by playing sports, and players should also be paid for putting their bodies on the line while playing sports.
College athletics for some schools are what brings in the most revenues in terms of category. These college athletes that attend these schools are able to generate millions to billions of dollars from viewers, sponsorships, and fans. “The 231 NCAA Division I schools with data available generated a total of $9.15 billion in revenue during the 2015 fiscal year. But while there are 24 schools that make more than $100 million” (Gaines,Cork). This data provides the evidence that the top generating schools has the capabilities to pay their athletes, yet they do not. John Bill an expert believes the NCAA should pay college athletes. Bill explains, “The promise of a free education is not enough anymore if the NCAA wants to act as a money making business, and not reward those who help make it profitable” (Bill,John). The NCAA has evolved to be a professional league on its own. For the amount of revenue they will be earning it is comparable to the
In 1906 the NCAA was born as a discussion group and rule making committee. The NCAA is a Non-profit organization, which is why players cannot be paid. For years the NCAA has been using the words “amateur” and “student athlete” in order for them to control and limit the benefits of these players, but while watching these players it is clear to tell they are far from amateur in a skill level perspective, which is shown when they garner the attentions of millions every Saturday during football season or during March Madness. College athletes are money making machines for the NCAA. It is time for the NCAA to get their hands out of their pockets and pay these players like they deserve, paying college athletes has been discussed for years and years now, but with schools like Northwestern being able to unionize and the celebrity of these athletes on the rise this will still be a heated debate. These student athletes put everything on the line for the sport they love, their time, their education, their health, all just to make the NCAA richer when they are just another number to them.
One of the hottest debates in the sports industry is if college athletes should be paid. If you want to pay these athletes, how would the college determine the dollar amount that should be paid? Should the basketball team make more than the football team? Should the the soccer team be paid as well? Cheerleading? Chess team? Should everyone on the team get a salary? What if your college is good at football and your basketball team is awful? Rather than thinking about these questions, the college board is just better off not paying athletes like how they did in the old days. For example, “When the National Collegiate Athletic Association was founded by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1905, the institution was devoted to the belief of not providing a salary to the college-athletes who took participated in the organization. It is based on the belief of amateurism, and it was a remarkable idea” (Meshefejian). However, The continuous growth of NCAA causes a huge amount of revenue to come into colleges and this cause controversy to whether if athletes should be paid for what they do. The opinions on this subject can be grouped into two general categories. Some feel that college athletes should not be paid because education comes first and athletes are already paid in full. Others feel that college athletes should be paid because playing a sport is a full-time job and it would make the sport more competitive. Although some
More and more it’s discussed daily on whether if college athletes should finally be paid, or remain unpaid, this topic is very important because college sports are very popular in the United States. College athletes should remain unpaid because it wouldn’t be fair to the other less watch sports that don’t bring in a lot of revenue, it wouldn’t be fair to the female athletes they wouldn’t be paid equally, college athletes already have advantages and receive benefits, and paying the athletes would only benefit the big named universities and not the smaller schools. College athletes were all recruited out of high school to play a sport for a university of their choosing, if the athletes were good enough they would receive a scholarship, that comes with a free education, free housing, and a free meal plan. A discussed topic is should college athletes be paid because of all the hard work and revenue that they bring towards their universities, or should they remain unpaid because they are already receiving enough. In the article “Pay to play: should college athletes be paid?” Many get scholarships, which help pay for their tuition, supplies, housing, and sporting equipment. According to the NCAA, college athletes often receive grants worth more than $100,000”. (Birkenses & Bagaria Par. 8) A free education is already enough, college athletes get to go to school for free just because of their athletic abilities, which also
Furthermore, paying student athletes would alter the principles of collegiate sports. As before stated, college sports were believed to develop “competitors who were morally superior to professionals” (“Amateur”). Playing college sports, as an amateur, has long been regarded as a huge opportunity for the student athlete. It offers an athlete the chance to compete at a higher level of competition, while at the same time receiving a college education. For example, the article “For the Love of the Game” discusses athletes competing at Division II and Division III collegiate levels. He explains the situations of just a few individuals who currently compete for schools while receiving no little to no benefits. The athletes pay their way through school, yet they are nothing less than grateful to have the opportunity to compete in collegiate sports (Shipnuck 1). But more than ever, student athletes are making crucial decisions based upon money. A payment system would only intensify the student athlete’s urge to make decisions based upon money-luxuries. The student athlete’s motivation to compete in collegiate athletics would drastically change. Paying athletes would create an incentive for athletes to attend college for athletics rather than to receive an education. The student athlete would now be
As the rule went into effect, many high-school athletes were signing National Letters of Intend to attend a college or university to play a certain sport. This of course meant that these incoming freshmen would be guaranteed $2000, along with their scholarship without having played a single second at the institution. But soon college athletic directors and conference presidents started appealing the rule and within a month over 125 members had signed an “override request” because it was too expensive (Nocera 2). Nocera than begins to illustrate the concept of how college coaches and the school themselves, are being paid and making a great deal of money. The Ohio State University’s head football coach, Urban Meyers signed a deal in 2011, agreeing to make $24 million dollars in six years, and top-notch conferences are signing television sponsorship deals for upwards of $11 billion dollars for fourteen years (Nocera 2). While the players are dedicating countless hours on and off the playing field, and not being compensated, they see their coaches making millions of dollars. Imagine stepping out to the field and seeing over 80,000 fans coming to see you play, and you can’t make any profit off that. Nocera believes that it is a “system that enables misconduct to flourish” (Nocera 3). Another consequence is that players tend to violate many rules of the NCAA involving financial aid and receiving money. Notorious athletic programs including Penn State
College sports are big money makers, at least that’s what most people think, right? The truth is they are, but out of the 23 sports managed by the NCAA, the only college sports that really make money is Division I basketball and football. And out of these sports, the only ones who will earn money is the universities who make it to the playoffs and championships.
Which is against NCAA rules, athletes are not eligible for participation in a sport if you have ever: Taken pay, or the promise of pay, for competing in that sport. Nor are athletes allowed to work anywhere where there image maybe use to promote business. These amateur athletes have no incentive to stay in college and finish their respective degrees, as many cannot afford to pay for the increasingly expensive college experience. Some even argue, College athletes are being exploited by their schools, which make millions of dollars off of intercollegiate athletics. Everywhere else athletes are paid, so why shouldn’t college students too?