Lindsey Simmerman Speech 102 T/Th 1:00-2:15 October 25, 2016 Should college athletes be paid to play? Specific Purpose: To persuade the class to agree with my stance on paying college athletes to play sports Thesis: College football is the hours players spend practicing and performing, the number of injuries the players face, and the persona these athletes must portray every day all the while watching their schools, coaches, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) get all the compensation. Introduction: It is a Saturday afternoon in the fall, and every family from the South knows what that means. College football. It comes as naturally as breathing for some families, with generations partaking in the tailgating tradition before their beloved teams take the field. However, while these families are basking in the social experience that is college football Saturday, do they realize what is really going on behind the scenes? These athletes should have the right to earn what they are worth (Zirin). These athletes should be paid to play. Today, I will be talking about the reasons college athletes should be paid, a proposed way to go about paying college athletes for their contributions, and the arguments against paying college athletes. Body I. College athletes do not have time to have a job to be able to provide for themselves the things that scholarships do not cover. A. The average Division One football player dedicates over forty hours per week to their
For years now there have been the argument if college athletes should be paid to play or not. It is an ongoing debate between many people including the National Collegiate Athletic Association(NCAA), athletes, coach, and other various people. The has debate has gone far enough that a lawsuit has started over it. There are many arguments for college athletes being paid such as; the athletes do not have time to work, their images are being used without any type of pay, and how the NCAA and coaches make millions of dollars off of the players while the players do not make anything. On the flip side of this, arguments that the athletes should not be paid include; they get paid in other varies ways, the average college athletic department loses enough money already without paying the athletes, and the fact that not all college athletes are in school to become professional athletes anyhow so making money from their athletic abilities should not be an issue for them at all.
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.
Should college student-athletes be paid has become a much debated topic. The incentive for a student-athlete to play a college sport should not be for money, but for the love of the game. It has been argued that colleges are making money and therefore the student-athlete should be compensated. When contemplating college income from sporting events and memorabilia from popular sports, such as football and basketball, it must not be forgotten that colleges do incur tremendous expense for all their sports programs. If income from sports is the driving factor to pay student-athletes, several major problems arise from such a decision. One problem is who gets a salary and the second problem is how much should they be paid. Also, if the income
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.
The question of whether or not college athletes should get paid is of heated debate in todays times. While many believe that student athletes are entitled to income, It remains undougtibly a concern of moral interest to universities across the country. This paper is going to explain the pros and cons that come with allowing student athletes the right to receive a salary.
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.
Abstract: Collegiate athletes participating in the two revenue sports (football, men's basketball) sacrifice their time, education, and risk physical harm for their respected programs. The players are controlled by a governing body (NCAA) that dictates when they can show up to work, and when they cannot show up for work. They are restricted from making any substantial financial gains outside of their sports arena. These athletes receive no compensation for their efforts, while others prosper from their abilities. The athletes participating in the two revenue sports of college athletics, football and men's basketball should be compensated for their time, dedication, and work put forth in their respected sports.
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.
Many individuals are for college athletes being paid, but there is plenty of information leading as to why college athletes should not get paid. College football is not about the players, but about the game. Many will say it is redundant that education is the prize, but is it really? Can universities pay college athletes and still be sure that they are not messing with the intellectual purpose of the athletes? This debate is one that has been going on for as long as anyone can remember, even though there is never an answer as to why and why not. Although many people agree that the NCAA, also known as the National Collegiate Athletic Association, players should get paid, Pasnanski points out all the advantages that college athletes receive that they do not realize.
The college athlete has steadily grown in popularity in the United States over the span of the past decades. Monetarily speaking, this increased publicity has been extremely beneficial for National Athletic Association (NCAA) and all the colleges involved in athletics which has sparked the dispute of whether or not the athlete should be paid for their hard work and dedication on the field and to their school or if the athletic scholarship is more than enough. College athletes should be paid.
Over the last several years, college athletics have gained monumental popularity in the United States. With the rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue. Some college athletic programs have revenue in the millions. Yet with this large sum of money, no college athletes are legally compensated for their work. According to NCAA rules, “You are not eligible for participation in a sport if you have ever: Taken pay, or the promise of pay, for competing in that sport” (NCAA Regulations 1).
College sports are extremely popular across America and bring in billions of dollars of revenue every year through ticket and merchandise sales. Currently, the National Collegiate Athletics Association, or the NCAA, gains around 11 billion dollars in revenue annually (listland.com). The problem at hand is that the college athletes who are performing on the field to bring in all of this money do not receive any of it, all of the revenue goes to the university and the NCAA. This money then vanishes into growing black holes such as million dollar coach contracts and stadium renovations. The NCAA argues that a full ride scholarship is compensation enough for players, but in reality that is not true and some players are not even on scholarship.
Televised sports help people watch games, without you actually being present at the event. Whether it’s the NBA, the NFL, or even the NCAA, which is the National Collegiate Athletic Association, people see their favorite games all over the sports channels. Two out of the three groups I have listed have their athletes being paid. The NCAA does not believe in rewarding their athletes. When college athletes get hurt, they do not get paid. Although, I agree with colleges not compensating students who are injured, overall they should get paid for their hard work.
For over a century, college athletics have thrilled generations of fans; from alumni gathered in stadiums to armchair quarterbacks, the fervor of team loyalty reaches spiritual proportions. This popularity is evident from the gigantic economy college athletics have created, with the NCAA raking in nearly eleven billion dollars last year (Edelman 7). A problem overlooked in spite of this boom is the exploitation of the people who make this venture so profitable: the players. Although it has not always been the case, the majority of players now are grossly undercompensated for contributions to their alma maters, the sport, and the burgeoning economy created by the two. College athletes are exploited when universities refuse to acknowledge
Student athletes commonly go to school for one reason: their love for the sport they participate in. These student athletes get scholarships from large Division 1 schools, which means things such as schooling, board, and food will be paid for by the school so the student athletes do not have to pay for these benefits themselves (Patterson). If college athletes are to be paid, it will cause unfair compensation between players who are valued or played more than others. When student athletes are rewarded with a scholarship, they have nothing school related that they would need to pay for. This can lead them to blow all of their income on unnecessary or dangerous things such as drugs and alcohol which could get them removed from the team they