Should College Athletes Be Paid?

Intercollegiate sports have been around since the 1850s to promote athletes to play for the love of the game and not for income. Recently, two different decisions have endangered this tradition: the decision by the National Labor Relations Board to recognize the Northwestern University football team as employees of the university and a federal judge’s decision regarding payment to football and men’s basketball players. Both decisions favor the idea of paying NCAA athletes because their games generate massive income; from ticket sales, merchandising, and TV and marketing contracts, that benefit the university, but not the athletes themselves (Majerol). Nonetheless, NCAA athletes should not be paid because of the problems that would arise from

Since the 1950’s the NCAA has promoted an idea that student athletes that are given a full scholarships are receiving a free ride for their education. In this article Ramogi Huma, and Ellen Staurowsky highlight controversial issues about how college athletics are run. In the article it is noted that 45% of football, and 52% of basketball players do not graduate. The two programs that revenue the most money for an athletic program are Men’s Football, and Men’s Basketball. The article debates that the NCAA uses the money that athletes in men’s football and basketball generate from their play to assist in funding other programs in the athletic department. While athletes are generating millions of dollars for their universities, the athlete spends on average of $3,222 in out of pocket expenses. While attending these universities these athletes live at or under the poverty line. If these athletes were allowed access to the fair market like the professional athletes, the average FBS football and basketball player would be “worth approximately $121,048 and $265,027 respectively (not counting individual commercial endorsement deals)” (Huma). The NCAA maintains that these athletes are amateurs and to keep their eligibility to participate in college athletics they can receive zero compensation for their talent. By maintaining this view point the NCAA allows athletes to only receive grant-in-aid’s which reward the athlete with free tuition, and room and board and can receive no other

Howard Chudacoff raises the controversial question of whether or not college athletes should be paid during a time of the year when people are most focused on college athletics, March Madness. Chudacoff is a firm believer that college athletes are given enough amenities as it is and do not deserve extra compensation or paychecks. His main arguments to support his position revolve around the royalties that power five athletes receive in regards to education centers, training facilities, and the fact that these players receive a free education. Chudacoff paints the picture of these facilities throughout his article and appeals to the reader’s pathos by descriptively showing the reader how college athletes really do live like millionaires.

College athletes have much more responsibilities to worry about than pros, and scholarships don 't help athletes that much and they often don’t even finish college. The problem is college athletes don 't get paid when they have twice the responsibilities of pro athletes. college athletes have to juggle their sport practices and games, being on the road a lot of the time, going to classes everyday, and going to work so they can have money to eat. The solution would be to take out of all the money college athletes make from games, and memorabilia. NCAA is a billion dollar organization and they don 't pay the very people who make them the

College athletic programs are among the most popular sporting events in America. With this rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue in recent years. In 2014, the NCAA made over 900 million dollars in revenue. Some collegiate coaches, such as Kentucky’s John Calipari, have yearly salaries in the millions, not counting incentives and endorsement deals. While, clearly, money is being made, NCAA regulations ban collegiate athletes from being paid. Many question this rule and argue that athletes at the college level earn and deserve pay for play. The debate to pay or not to pay college athletes rages on despite the latest court ruling supporting NCAA policies. Because colleges and universities earn such a profit from sporting events, many fans feel it is only fair to distribute some of the wealth to the players. Supporters of paying student athletes feel that these young men and women should be fairly compensated for the time demanded of the athletes and the stress put on the athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Those in favor of paying college athletes contend that athletic and academic work ethic at both high school and collegiate levels will improve, as well as, fiscal responsibility in these young adults. The NCAA argues that paying athletes would negatively affect their

Colleges are infamous for pouring millions upon millions of dollars into their sports programs, except of course, when it comes to paying athletes. Because college athletes are not allowed to be paid in accordance to federal law while they simultaneously create large sums of revenue, there has been a heated debate that Kristi Dosh and Mark Cassell readily provide contrasting evidence for. In Dosh’s article, “The Problems with Paying College Players,” she argues that it would not be fair to pay college players because many college sports programs are already indebted to their school, and if some schools couldn’t afford to pay their players, the well-funded schools would be at an unprecedented advantage. To contrast, Cassell’s “College Athletes Should be Able to Negotiate Compensation,” takes the viewpoint defending college athletes’ pay because the athletes that bring in the most revenue, the star players, are cheated out of compensation in a way that unrightfully benefits those in charge. Although Dosh makes clear points about problems with the financial realities of paying players, Cassell makes the more convincing argument because he uses effective evidence to highlight the injustices of not paying athletes.

Collegiate sports have turned into a billion dollar industry and are probably just as popular, if not more popular than professional sports. College athletes put their bodies on the line to play a sport they love, many with hopes and dreams to one day make it to the professional leagues. Athletic facilities are the major money makers for all universities. Colleges bring in billions of dollars in revenue annually, yet athletes do not get paid. Some fans believe athletes should not get paid due to their sports level being “amateurish.”; however, this is far from the truth. There is much more to being a college athlete than just practicing and playing games. These student-athletes must practice, weight lift, go to meetings, travel, go to tutoring and study groups, all the while maintaining sufficient grades. This is very tedious work and is very time consuming. College athletes have a high standard to live up to (Frederick Web; Huma Web; Patterson Web ).

One of the many controversial issues regarding college sports is whether athletes should be paid or not. The argument against paying college athletes is often that they are already paid in the form of full ride scholarships for a free education, for one, and two that college is for amateurs and to pay them would mean that they are professionals and not student-athletes. But as a college student myself I can tell you a scholarship does not cover all the expenses of college. College sports is big business there is no question about it, but how is a non-profit able to generate billions of dollars on the backs of athletes who never see that money? Karl Marx would call this an exploitation of labor. The essential issue here is that, given the measure of cash that is put into school sports and the enormous benefits that big time college athletics create, would we be able to truly say that the players are amateurs? Or are they just slaves working for the universities? In Dorfman 's article, Pay College Athletes? They 're Already Paid Up To $125,000 Per Year, he supports that athletes should not be paid. On the other hand, in Nocera 's article, Here 's How TO Pay Up Now, he defends that athletes deserve to be paid as well as Taylor Branch’s article in The Atlantic titled The Shame of College Sports. In this essay a connection will be made between Karl Marx 's views and their implications on college athletics.

Helen Hayes expresses that “ the expert in anything was once a beginner.” This quote relates to all athletes in pursuance of making themselves noticeable. Being an amature at sports is an athletes worst fear. Any athlete who is passionate about their sport, wants to succeed in the world of sports; therefore, the rising athletes want to continue their success in college. College is a place where the athletes start to receive fans and begin their journey of success. However, beginning the college experience is like throwing away one’s money because of all the collegian’s expenses. Many college athletes of today are accumulating debt in college instead of collecting money for their dedication and hardwork. The ongoing debate on whether or not college athletes should be paid is starting to raise sport fans and athlete’s attention about the issue. People are starting to realize the true facts about playing college sports and that it is not just fun and games anymore. Athletes are merely performers and the audience is just enjoying the show. With that being said, college athletes are being profited off of without receiving their paycheck. College athletes should be paid because the college they are attending is expensive, businesses are profiting off of them, and the hard work of an athlete is not being paid for.

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.

In America sports wherever there is people, there will also be sports. Sports have played a major role in American history. To some people sports is all they have. It is just the way that things are. The issue in sports now is that the NCAA exploit the sports world and the very backbone of the corporation is the poorest. It is an issue that has been around for quite some time now. The issue is that the sports world face is the fact that college athletes are not paid, although they perform in a multibillion dollar industry. The NCAA basically has a monopoly on college athletics, and generate about one billion dollars a year. College sports are extremely demanding both in and out of season, and these athletes put their future on the line. The NCAA should be legally obligated to compensate athletes, based solely on the fact that the money made, is from their performance.

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

Ever since its formation in 1910, the National Collegiate Athletic Association or NCAA, has provided student athletes the ability to attend colleges through scholarships while playing for their schools. However, the ideology of inter-collegiate athletics, amateurism, and sportsmanship masks the troubling problem for many of the players; the ban on paying student athletes. The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a 6 billion dollar a year institution that is a so-called, “non-profit organization.” While they claim to provide athletes a gateway to a higher education, their inability to provide any compensation for their hard work and sacrifices make them incredibly exploitative. It is

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