Should College Athletes Be Paid?

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

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 ).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If the NCAA decided to pay college athletes, it would create more problems than solutions. For example, if student-athletes are offered a salary, most likely the cost of school tuition will go up because the money paid to the student-athletes must come from somewhere and the revenue from sporting events and memorabilia will not be enough to cover all student-athlete salaries as well as expenses to run all the college’s sports programs. In addition, not all college sports draw the same fan base and therefore, income is greatly varied between sports programs which in turn will create an unfair balance when determining the salary for each student-athlete. All student-athletes regardless of which sport they are participating would expect equal pay.

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.

Student athletes should not be paid. A misconception is that all athletic programs in the NCAA make head-over-toe profit. There are three divisions of intercollegiate athletics, and frankly division three athletic programs don’t make as much or have a profit when compared to division one programs. “Critics of paying college athletes note that only a small number of them compete in sports or on teams that actually generate revenue”. (Paying College Athletes) The truth is only a fraction of athletic programs are actually profitable, while most pose a cost to the institution. The question arises primarily in division one programs and typically in the sports of basketball and football. The argument is made that these institutions receive millions of dollars from their student athletes’ performance, in return they should be paid.

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.

Recently, one of the most prominent and controversial topics in sports is whether college athletes should or should not be paid to play. Many experts tend to argue that college athletes should not be paid to play in schools. I disagree with this argument due to various reasons. A key source of income that is seen to exist in different institutions is college athletics. It largely attracts many students into institutions. Moreover, many universities worldwide depend on athletes in order to produce as well as maintain the institution’s name and popularity. Therefore, college athletes play a significant role towards promoting their schools in achieving their different goals such as an adequate income acquisition. Thus, my question is, why do college athletes not get paid?

As of today, there are over 460,000 NCAA student-athletes that compete in 24 different sports while in college throughout the United States (NCAA). Over the past couple decades, the argument for paying these college athletes has gained steam and is a hot topic in the sports community. However, paying these college athletes is not feasible because most universities do not generate enough revenue to provide them with a salary and some even lose money from the sports programs. These collegiate student-athletes are amateurs and paying them would ruin the meaning of college athletics. Also, playing college sports is a choice and a privilege with no mention or guarantee of a salary besides a full-ride scholarship. Although some argue that

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