Should College Athletes Get Paid

College sports is a multi-billion dollar industry. Each year thousands of high school students are recruited to play college sports, but under strict conditions. Students are required to do well in athletics while keeping up with their academics. College athletes spend up to forty five hours per week on practices, training, and games. In addition, they spend roughly forty hours on their academics. The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletics Association) does not think it is necessary to pay these athletes because they want to maintain the “amateur sport” status. According to Stanley Eitzen in his “College Athletes should be Paid, “The universities and the NCAA claim their athletes in big-time sports programs

In the recent past, college athletics has gained massive fame in the United States. The immense fame of the college athletics has developed over the past twenty years. The massive development and fame of the college athletics have resulted in improved incomes for the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA). Due to increased revenue received by the NCAA, the participates in athletics in the colleges has fuelled the argument of whether the college athletes need to be paid and rewarded more than just the athletic scholarships. In this research paper, I will take a stab at to respond the question whether they should be paid by delving the explanations for and against the payment of the college athletes (Adams and Becky 108).

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.

College athletes should be paid. The athletes put in as much work as the people who do get paid. Why should they not be paid? There are many pros for why they should get paid, but there are also many cons on why they should not get paid. The athletes should get paid because of how hard they work in season and the off-season. Do not pay all of the athletes, but pay the ones who are at a D1 college. The athletes should get paid because they put in the same amount of time as the pros do, and the pros get paid.

The System for college athletes isnt perfect, and needs to be worked on, a big problem we cannot seem to agree is how to compensate the student-athletes who drive the NCAA. I would like to start off with a question. Are college athletes being compensated enough for the effort they put forth today? Every Day they wake up early and represent their university whether they are putting in work in class or on the field. Each student-student athlete generates tons of money for their university and they don’t see a dime other than their scholarship that may or may not been renewed every year. Keep that question in mind while reading this essay, and form your own opinion.

Some college athletic departments are as wealthy as professional sports teams. The NCAA has an average annual revenue of $10.6 billion dollars. College athletes should be paid because of the amount of revenue that they bring to their college. Each individual college should pay its athletes based on how much revenue they bring to the college in which they attend. The colleges that win their Division title, their Conference title, or the National championship, give bonuses to the Head coach of that team. If colleges have enough money to give bonuses to coaches, that means they have money that is left over for the athlete who gives them recognition to pay them. College athletes should be paid based solely upon the performance and success that they have.

Kim Kardashian’s ex lover is not just famous for dating a “Kardashian”; he was more famous for the controversial issue with the NCAA due to proceeds given to him for his ability on the field. Reggie Bush made a lot of accomplishments while being a college athlete. Because of his skills, he was rewarded an amount of money. While Reggie Bush was playing at the University of Southern California, statistics show that the college generated roughly fifty-five million dollars. That’s a lot of money for one athlete to bring in. Every day we hear more and more stories about NCAA investigators and colleges being punished for “paying” players. However, college athletes bring in a lot of money. Therefore, they should get a percentage whether it is a small amount or a large amount. It will depend on the athletes’ ability. While some may argue that paying college athletes to play is wrong, college athletes have a marketable skill and should be paid for their skill.

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.

Over the last few years there has been renewed controversy about whether college athletes should be paid. The idea of paying college athletes goes back to the early 1900s with one of the first inter collegiate competitions between Harvard and Yale. The modern position of the National Collegiate Athletic Association is that athletic scholarships provide a free college education in return for participating on the university team. Many college athletes dedicate more than forty hours of training per week. College is expensive. How can we expect college athletes to pay for books and other basic necessities if they are busy practicing or participating in home games or traveling to away games? The NCAA needs to start paying these athletes to supplement

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

Athletes are dominated, managed, and controlled. They do not receive a wage compensation for their contribution to economic returns. Athletes are sometimes mistreated physically and mentally; and denied rights and freedoms of other citizens. The debate over whether or not to pay collegiate athletes, specifically Division 1, has increased greatly. Many people believe college athletic associations; such as the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Associations) treat college athletes unfairly. College athletes have been dedicating time, hard work, and much more to their schools' athletic departments. People are making millions of dollars off of these athletes while, they are living in poverty. Things need to change; these players need to

One of the biggest questions concerning college sports is not about who has the best recruiting class, or where the best coach is headed after their contract ends. The biggest question in NCAA sports is whether collegiant athletes should be paid by their university or not. College athletes have never been legally paid, and that needs to come to an end. NCAA athletes give us outstanding performances, creating memories and leaving their names in a historical manner. Yet, at the same time they are barely able to make it by day to day.

The NCAA dates back to the early 20th century when president Theodore Roosevelt encouraged reforms to college football practices, which had resulted in a lot of injuries and deaths. Henry MacCracken of New York University arranged meetings about the football rules and regulations. On December 28, 1905 in New York, 62 education institutions became members of the IAAUS (Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States), which is now better known as the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association). The NCAA started out as a rule making body. Finally in 1921 the first NCAA championship was born: the National Collegiate Track and Field championship. Later more championships were formed, including the big “March Madness” basketball tournament in 1939.

One of the most controversial subjects we as individuals hear about this day in age is whether or not college athletes deserve to be paid. Many people argue that these athletes do intact, deserve to be paid for their time and hard work. NCAA athletes create a name for themselves by playing and performing well on their college teams. The better these athletes perform, the more publicity the school revives. This then leads to higher ticket sales and stores around campus selling jerseys and other clothing items with athletes names and numbers on the back. NCAA schools have become comfortable with using athletes’ names to bring in a revenue for the school, and yet the athletes never see any of that money. On the other hand, many people believe that these athletes do not deserve, nor should they expect to receive payment in return. They believe that these scholarships and the education are payment in itself. Some even bring up the question on if it is affordable or even realistic to pay college athletes.

Many college athletes help their school receive revenue, but that doesn’t mean these athletes should get a percentage because of their contributions. ESPN wants us to view college athletes as if they are in training for a job or working for an unpaid internship (Hadaway). If college athletes were paid, college sports would be abolished forever. Paying these athletes would only benefit them; therefore, these players should not be paid. Professional and college sports should keep bold and straight line between each other.