Should College Athletes Be Paid?

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.

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.

Jarrod Uthoff, a Cedar Rapids native, left a legacy at the University of Iowa. He scored 30 points in one half at one of the most hostile arenas, Iowa State. He has made history by now being one of the Big Tens most dominate players. He was named Mr.Basketball in 2011 and also Gatorade Player of the Year. They put in around half of their time practicing their sport and that is without school work involved, according to Peter Jacobs author of an article from college student athletes. Yet after all that time they are not getting paid. As of right now the student-athletes do not get a wage, but they do get a scholarship, which is why this is such an important topic because the college players are a huge part of this issue. Many people

The grand debate of whether to pay college athletes continues today; yet, there are so many other amenities provided to the athletes that they are practically paid through those. College athletes are considered amateurs therefore they should not be paid. This debate has been going on for many years and there has not been a consensus on what to do.

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.

Since 1906 When Theodore Roosevelt established the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to infose and make rule for intercollegiate sports. The NCAA had made billions of dollars out of college athletic increasing popularity. This has fuelled debates whether college athletes should be compensated beyond their athletic scholarship and how and who would do it.

“From 1992 to 1996 the University of Michigan had a group of five young men known as the “Fab Five”, and their star player was Chris Webber. Throughout all four years they made millions of dollars for their athletic department as well as for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), but while doing so they somehow seemed to be making a large amount of money themselves. The public did not want to believe they could be taking part in gambling as Chris Webber would talk about how he did not have enough money to buy even a Big Mac from the dollar menu at McDonalds, so when the “Fab Five” would show up to practice in their new cars, fancy clothes, and gaudy jewelry, the public would not take notice. Because the public tends to take pity on the poor college athlete struggling to pay for food they instead took his side and agreed college athletes should somehow be reimbursed believing they had done nothing wrong. Eventually the truth came out that Chris Webber and his teammates had received thousands from Ed Martin, a big gambler in Michigan who made thousands, and he was arrested for money laundering. Along with that came speculation that Webber and his teammates had also taken place in “point shaving”, although never proven it was never forgotten. (Torr, 64-65) The NCAAs’ reasons for not paying athletes are as followed, the NCAA feels college athletes are still considered amateurs, athletes number one priority on college should be focusing on his or

How in today’s society is it equitable to have a person perform labor, benefit off of their actions and that person not being compensated? Each year over 400,000 collegiate student-athletes both male and female, compete on 3 different division levels nationwide. During the lifespan of these athletes’ careers a select few become the face of their respective universities, who in turn generate uncountable amounts of revenue. Over the past couple of years the debate of paying college athletes has heated up and has been argued whether paying student-athletes would take the amateurism out of the game. Both ways they are involved and providing illegal services for cash to survive in a financially strapped economy. At what point does the NCAA

What has become a reoccurring topic of debate within sports, is whether or not college athletes should be paid. When referring to college athletes the main focus is on basketball and football athletes. The sports of both basketball and football in the NCAA generate the most revenue amongst all other college sports. The combined profit of these two sports go through a trickling down process, in which the income is distributed amongst the other sports teams of the university. The ideal thing to expect is to pay all college athletes, the reality is that only football and basketball players will be paid.

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.

College athletics have amounted to enormous popularity among Americans over the past few decades. This has resulted into increased revenues for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and the participating colleges, which has started the debate of whether college athletes should be rewarded beyond their athletic scholarships. This paper will attempt to answer the question as to whether college athletes should be paid by explaining some pros and cons of this subject.

College sports players gain so much revenue which, as resulted from the (NCAA) National Collegiate Athletic Association. Due to, this situation rising over the few past decades. Participating colleges have caused such debate in whether college athletes should be compensated.

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

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