Should College Athletes Be Paid?

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 ).

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.

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.

Debating to pay college athletes for their time, effort, and the money the help generate for the school they attend has been an ongoing debate for countless years. This issue has become more prevalent in recent years because of the expense of living in today’s economy, and the fact that big-time college athletes contribute but do not receive any of the millions of dollars generated by their sports. Stanley Eitzen, a professor emeritus of sociology at Colorado State University, former president of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport, and the author of Fair and Foul: Beyond the Myths and Paradoxes of Sport, stands up for athletes and demands that society and the NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic Association], reconsider

In America we feel comfortable deciding how much somebody should get paid or if in fact they should get paid. We like to make decisions like that because it gives us power over somebody else. There are numerous ways where throughout history we have tried to influence how much a group of people get paid, or to influence the how much a certain race should get paid. We want to give everybody the same opportunity to succeed not depending on race, religion, or ethnicity. To give everybody a fair shot in life doesn’t always work out because you can’t always please everybody. You might work hard and put in a lot of effort, but to reach a certain outcome doesn’t always home to fruition. Being an elite level athlete and studying in school is one of

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.

Over time the landscape of college sports in the United States have changed drastically. Since it was created in 1906, the format of the “IAAUS” has been drastically altered five times. Not to mention the seemingly constant realignment of teams, placing teams like Memphis in the “Big East” even though they are not located in the east. (Smith, Ronald) The people who are most affected by the atrocities preformed by the NCAA are the players. Every higher up in the NCAA, from the coaches to the president of the NCAA get paid boatloads of money. These people coaches, athletic directors, athletic trainers, everyone involved are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and at the big time schools millions. Everyone gets paid except for

The majority of human beings in today’s society feel as if it is right and just that everyone should be compensated fairly for the work they put in. Sadly, those behind the scenes of NCAA Division 1 athletes do not feel the same. College athletics is well over a billion dollar industry, but it is clear that the hard workers behind all of these big bucks are not seeing enough of the profits. Sure, it may be argued that college athletes are compensated for their athletic achievements and hard work by having their tuition and school feels covered, but is that truly a fair trade? Covering four years, a full ride scholarship at big universities with prestigious athletic program amounts up to on average about $120,000. The university of Texas

Two heated debates arise when considering faults in modern-day college athletics. The first is in college football whether or not a playoff system should be implemented in order to determine a definite Bowl Championship Series (BCS) Champion. This major issue in college football has been temporarily solved with the approval of a four-team playoff starting in 2014 and ending in 2025 (Dinich 1). Though it remains highly exclusive to the top four ranked teams at the end of the season, there lies an opportunity to grow its structure. Second tier, Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) expanded the playoff from 16 teams to 24 teams by giving the top eight seeds a bye in round one. The second most controversial question recurring in college

During the years prior to the year 2017, there has been thousands of controversial topics that the world or United States has had to deal with. Whether the conflict is over a world problem such as Global Warming, or if it is a country conflict such as abortion laws. Many people have to work together in order to find the right solution to what will work best for everybody. The steps that is taken to come up with a solution is the same steps for any controversial topic that comes up. With that being said a big controversy in the United States today is whether or not college athletes should be paid while attending and playing for the University of their

Televised sports help people watch games, without you actually being present at the event. Whether it’s the NBA, the NFL, or even the NCAA, which is the National Collegiate Athletic Association, people see their favorite games all over the sports channels. Two out of the three groups I have listed have their athletes being paid. The NCAA does not believe in rewarding their athletes. When college athletes get hurt, they do not get paid. Although, I agree with colleges not compensating students who are injured, overall they should get paid for their hard work.

For quite some time now there has been a great dispute about whether or not athletes at the collegiate level should receive compensation for their hard work. The proposal of payment to student athletes has begun major conversations and arguments nationwide. Some people argue that college athletes already receive compensation by not only having to pay for college tuition but the special treatment that goes along with being a collegiate athlete. While the idea of receiving a free college education for four years is something few would complain about; when examined up-close, the issue becomes more apparent that it is not enough.

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?

The students spend 40 hours, per week, just practicing. This does not include games, team meetings, or weight lifting. With all the time they spend doing stuff for their sport, students do not have much time for academics. According to the NCAA, athletes are only allowed to practice for 20 hours per week, or 4 per day, however, most sports practice way more (see fig.2) (Jacobs 2015). Mark Nagel, a professor of sports and entertainment management at the University of South Carolina, exclaims that “there’s technically an off-season, but there are these voluntary workouts that most coaches say are voluntary but then expect athletes to be at. The system is set up to where the coaches encourage athletes to train all year round, but there’s also pressure from the athletes themselves. Even when an athlete is given a situation where it’s truly voluntary, they still might be practicing. It’s the competitive nature of sports.” (New 2015) What Nagel is trying to say is that, even though the coaches claim that the off-season workouts are optional, they are not actually optional. Also, the coaches have put so much pressure on the students that even if it actually is optional, the student athletes still believe they must go. Therefore, although they are called student-athletes, they aren’t as much the student part as they are the athlete. It is almost as if the sport was a job and the schooling was the extracurricular

Playing a sport in college, especially at Division 1 schools are very time consuming between practicing and playing games. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) allows 20 hours of practice a week for athletes, but practices often last longer (“How do College Athletes…”). Collegiate athletes often do not have enough time to set aside for their classes. Many of these athletes are spending more time playing their sport than managing their schoolwork. If the athletes do not show up to every practice, then they tend to feel uncommitted and disincluded. According to an NCAA survey on college athletes, the most demanding sports are Division 1 and Division 2 baseball. Division 1 basketball and football are very demanding as well (O’Shaughnessy). All athletes have to make sure they establish their priorities for their sport and academics. College athletes should finish their most difficult tasks first, then they can