Should College Athletes Be Paid?

Arian Foster, former running back for University of Tennessee, said “Indentured Servant definition is exactly what a student athlete is; [they] get food, accommodations, and training, but not paid.” (qtd. in Finkel, Martin, and Paley). Being a college athlete is a full time job, add in the travel, homework, and having to go to class. Is there even anytime to work a part time job to make some money? All college athletes are under a giant spotlight. Every move they make is watched and judged closely by the NCAA to make sure they don’t break the amateur rule. They are not allowed to accept anything from anyone, and many don’t have enough money to even buy themselves food to eat. College athletes not only draw audiences to the games, but

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 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) makes roughly $1 billion in income annually and the athletes do not receive any of it. This topic has been debated for many years and is still being debated. The debate dates back to the 1980s and now athletes are demanding that they deserve to be paid since profits are made off of them. Some athletes such as former and current basketball and football players came together with lawsuits to federal courts asking for rewards from profits NCAA makes gets of them. Research has opened several different opinions on this matter. There are many pros and cons for paying college athletes. College sports provide a huge source of the university’s income. The athletes, however, receive their scholarship

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.

Sports have been a big part of culture in the United States since the 1900’s. Sports has become a multibillion dollar business of sort, with spots such as baseball, basketball, and football captivating americans.With american sports gaining popularity, the growth of college sports went on the rise. In 2013, The National Collegiate Athletic Association statistically generated $912,804,046 (Alesia, 2014). With all of this income that the NCAA brought in, one has to raise the question, should college athletes be paid? Even though college athletes are student athletes, they should be paid because they are practically employees to the college without compensation.

The popularity of college athletics have risen immensely over the past few years. The idea of paying college football athletes has been a continuous debate since the early 1900’s. This paper will debate whether college athletes should be paid a monetary compensation outside of their scholarships. This will be done by examining reasons for and against the monetary revenue for the athletes.

“But Whittenburg beats Anders to the ball, retrieves it and with the clock showing 0:02 he heaves a 35-foot desperation shot. Charles, reading the shot all the way, leaps, snatches the ball from the air and slams the ball into the net with a second left” (Espn). Fans all over the world pay hundreds of dollars to view college sports games similar to this one. People are about as entertained as they can get. But how much do they players make for this? It 's an argument that pops up every year approaching the legendary NCAA basketball championships. College athletes should not be paid by the NCAA because it would be too difficult to determine the amount each player earns from the NCAA, schools can have unfair advantages over one another recruiting wise, and athletes who receive full scholarships gain advantages for the rest of their life.

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.

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.

With the universities pulling in more than twelve billion dollars, the rate of growth for college athletics surpasses companies like McDonalds and Chevron (Finkel, 2013). The athletes claim they are making all the money, but do not see a dime of this revenue. The age-old notion that the collegiate athletes are amateurs and students, binds them into not being paid by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). This pay for play discussion has been talked about since the early 1900s but recently large steps are being made to actually make a change. There are many perspectives on the payment of collegiate student athletes coming from the NCAA, the athletes themselves, and the university officials.

Some believe that college athletes at the highest performing schools are better treated than others. Although they do not get paid, they do receive some benefits for being athletes that other students would not get. One advantage for playing a sport is access to scholarships that some schools reserve for their athletes. Depending on the school and the athlete’s performance, money towards tuition is often given. Only some schools are willing to grant “full-ride” scholarships for certain athletes. According to its rules, “the NCAA prohibits payments, beyond educational scholarships and specified expenses, to the athletes who are responsible for producing those revenues” (Goldman, Lee). This rule is a way to limit an athlete 's ability to

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

Michael Jordan once said, “In college I never realized the opportunities available to a pro athlete. I 've been given the chance to meet all kinds of people, to travel and expand my financial capabilities, to get ideas and learn about life, to create a world apart from basketball.” Michael Jordan is a huge face in sports and is well known all over the world and throughout all generations. In college at North Carolina University where he attended he talks about how there is more than just being an athlete. There is a life away from sports because one day you may became a professional athlete but then there comes a day that you retire and find joy in another part of your life. Tying this into the theme of “Should College Athletes be Paid?” can be determined upon the value of the students and others perspective of the game.

Many debates, court cases, and articles have been produced the past couple of years debating whether college student-athletes should be paid. I specifically chose this topic because it pertains to me, and I can relate to both sides of the argument. Being a student-athlete at St. Lawrence University, I can attest to how much time athletes put into their sport and all the hard-work put in on a daily basis. On one hand, I see how the student-athlete deems him/herself as a full-time athlete and spend more time practicing and working out for their team than they do in the classroom, which entails them to some sort of compensation. I can also see the other side of the argument, and how the athlete is either getting paid with a scholarship