Should College Athletes Be Paid

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

Only 2% are drafted into the NFL for instance, while the other 98% are getting a $200,000 education for free. There are eighty scholarship players on each of the 112 Division 1-A teams. This costs a university $16,000,000 to pay for an entire roster over four years (1 “College Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid”). With all of that money being thrown around, it would be difficult for a college to determine which athlete gets paid how much, and if one sport deserves to get paid more than another.

Free education is a huge factor as to why they should not be paid. Research shows that “College athletes don't have to worry about student loans, paying for textbooks, the cost of on living and meal plans.” (Source B) Which can add up to a substantial amount. I would say they get free education, in return they represent the school in sports.

The first president of the NCAA, Walter Byers, once stated, “All of this is not fair, and I predict that the amateur code now based on a forgone philosophy and held in place for shear economic purposes, will not long stand the test of the law” (Schooled-The Price of College Sports). So why has it? This controversial issue on whether college athletes should be compensated or not has been debated for years, but still has not been resolved. Although the highly disputed debate on whether to pay college athletes or not is very intricate, evidence clearly shows they should be further compensated.

As students sign a pay-to-play agreement with their college, the college makes loads of money from the athletes’ performances; meanwhile, the athlete is said to lose their education. Paying college athletes will take away from their learning through college (Proquest Staff). Although critics believe that paying athletes will forfeit the student’s education, this is not the case. While athletes practice for countless hours to hone in on their athletic abilities, many are already missing out on an education. Athletes miss school for games; for example, March Madness. College basketball players are out performing for our entertainment, without anytime for education. Paying athletes has nothing to do with their education; the amount of time the student has determines how much of the education they receive. Therefore, in no way does paying college athletes affect the amount of education they receive. On the other hand, some critics bicker that colleges do collect millions of dollars in revenue, but come out of it with little to no profit. Not all colleges are profitable. Just 22 schools profited from football in 2009-2010 (“Issues & Controversies On File”). Many schools are in a financial slump when it comes to the athletic departments, but the majority of schools easily have enough money to pay their athletes. In conclusion, critics fear

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 athletes are often considered to be some of the luckiest young students in the world. However, there are a lot of problems with how athletes are treated, and one of those problems is college athletes do not get paid. These players should be paid for numerous reasons: the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) makes too much money off of their players and their home school; athletes may get hurt or lose their scholarship, and many do not go professional or have a

Who would be responsible for paying the students in this case? And what system will be used; do athletes with better performance get more pay than other members of the team? These things and a lot more only would result to many complexities, and thus, paying college athletes might indeed just deviate the students from what they went to their respective institutions in the first place, that is, to get a degree, not to gain a salary.” (http://www.youniversitytv.com/college-tips/pros-cons-paying-college-athletes/) There has been numerous college athletes that said they want to paid.

You were just shown some of the many reasons why college athletes should be paid but opponents of this will say that that if the athletes were paid that it would make lower level colleges more undesirable for the players. But the reality of that is that the lower level colleges are always, and have alway been less desirable for college athletes. They have smaller facilities and less attention. The reason athletes go to lower level schools is because they were denied by the higher level colleges(Wall Street Journal,2016,p.1). Another reason why lower level collages won’t suffer from paying the athletes is the NCAA is a nonprofit so the money made off of sports is supposed to be spent on sports so if that can be enforced they can definitely

College athletes have always been worked beyond imagine, and it is ridiculous to think that even in today’s society, college athletes are not paid. Unlike regular college students, student athletes are not able to work jobs or make extra money because they put over forty hours a week in to their respective sport. More often than not college athletes are taken advantage of because they put their bodies at risk for injury and have no insurance or income to make it worthwhile. Of course, some college athletes do go on to make millions of dollars, but that is only the case for a small percentage of college athletes, and since college sports brings in billions of dollars a year, college athletes should earn at least a small profit. Furthermore,

The football team at most schools stand out and excels more than any other sport on campus in the eyes of most of the people on campus. Should football players be paid for their performances over any other sport on campus? Is that fair? No, football players should not be compensated for their performances. If schools continue to give out scholarships and begin to give out pay checks to football players, they will eventually lose plenty of funds putting the school in a negative vibe. Plus, it wouldn’t be fair to the other types of sports if football players were the only sport that would be receiving payment for their performance. Other sports put in just about the same amount of work as the football team. So, there should be no distinction amongst the

College football players have never been financially compensated for their participation outside of usual academic scholarships. Skyrocketing revenue figures for colleges are now challenging that tradition. With those earning reaching eight figures for large-market institutions, players are looking to get their fair share of the prize (Siebold). The players believe that their schools should not be allowed to capitalize on their services, and therefore they should be monetarily rewarded (Cooper 12). This proposal essentially upends the ideals of college athletics. College football players should not be paid in order to preserve their amateur status and uphold the prototype of the student-athlete.

Colleges make too much money to not pay the athletes. The NCAA and CBS/Turner Sports made an eleven billion dollar deal for three weekends on television. There 's a new four year deal that pays the BCS five hundred million dollars. Colleges will usually spend money on things that are not necessary like extra advertisement or remodels on something that doesn 't

Some people think that the athletes should be paid based on an open market system, but that process wouldn’t work for every school. This would mean an individual player would be paid based on the revenue that comes in due to their talents, but may vary due to the different deals with the different schools. Yet, how will the value of an athlete be determined and what happens to an athlete that improves overtime after being hired? Or a player that gets a high pay and suddenly gets hurt? Also, not all colleges can afford to recruit the players they want. When a financial stability study was done in 2013 about Division I schools, only 23 out of 228 schools really had the money to pay a college athlete. Paying a college athlete wouldn’t be the smartest

To start off the argument, while I do not think they should be paid for their playing time, I do agree with the policies set that give them payment in other ways. The schools pay for their tuition, meal plan and room and board, to give them a more than comfortable living area. Along with the free doctor visits and personal training to enhance their performance. These student-athletes are compensated for their dues.