Should Student-Athletes Get Paid

Over the past 30 years or so college athletics have gained immense popularity and has resulted in an amazing amount of revenues from the NCAA and its Subsidiaries. The debate as to whether college athletes should be paid even beyond their athletic scholarships. While reading this paper it will answer the question as to whether college athletes should be paid by exploring the reasons for and against the payments of these athletes beyond their scholarship.

There have been much controversy weather universities should pay student athletes. The nation is divided into two groups, financially compensating the student-athlete or not. One side declares Division I and Division II schools make millions of dollars off ticket and merchandise, therefore, the athlete should receive a salary. The argument arises when for instance in football or basketball, schools make millions for winning bowls or tournaments, which the money awarded to the schools goes far beyond a four-year education. Video games along with last names on jersey have been banned for sale since college athletes were used without receiving financial compensation. On top of this are the multimillion dollar sponsorship deals universities are making with athletic apparel companies. The other side argues student athletes receive a free college education from prestigious schools and therefore should not receive financial gains. They declare a student-athlete receives free national exposure and paying them will uneven the playing field in college sports. In addition, a student will be deducted income taxes from their salary if paid. Most imply, some of the students come from inner city neighborhoods and some cannot read or write at a college level. As a result, these athletes are assigned tutors and therefore pass the courses with ease. In all, college sports have become huge money makers, but the question arises whether an

Paying student athletes has become a growing disputation among college athletes in recent years. College athletes have gained immense popularity among Americans over the past few decades. This has resulted into increased revenues for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its participating colleges. This often fuels the ongoing debate of whether college athletes should be compensated beyond their athletic scholarships. Because of the amount of income student athletes bring into schools, student athletes should be paid based on the amount of success, revenue, and popularity they bring to the school.

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.

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.

Ever since college students started playing sports, back in 1879 when Harvard played Yale in the first collegiate sports game, the question of whether college athletes should be paid was addressed. From that point on athletes, coaches, and college administrators have brought forward points agreeing or disagreeing with the notion of paying college students. The students argue that they deserve to be paid due to the revenue that they bring for the college and because of the games they play and the championships they win. At first the idea of paying college athletes was out of the question, but now the argument has gone from a simple yes or no to a heated debate. Since college athletes are given a free education, they should not also be paid.

Whether or not student-athletes should be paid has been a hotly debated topic since the 1900s. College athletes spend just as much time, if not more time, practicing and devoting time and energy to sports as they do academics. For this, many athletes are rewarded with scholarship money. However, many people believe it is not enough. Should we pay student-athletes a slice of the wealth or is a full-ride scholarship enough? (Business Insider). What if the athlete gets injured? Where does the money come out of to support each athlete’s salary? The huge amount of money being generated from college sports has led some people to think that the athletes are entitled to some of that revenue. While, some think that student-athletes should be paid, others disagree for various reasons.

In the United States, college athletics are growing larger by the minute. College athletics contribute not only to the recognition of colleges and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), it also contributes to the income of colleges and the NCAA. Without student athletes, these colleges and the NCAA would not reap the benefits of college athletics, such as: increased awareness of colleges, higher application rates, and of course the revenue brought in from game and event tickets, apparel, and contracts for licensing and television rights. Since the student athletes, who devote a great deal of time to their sport, are the cog in the machine that is the NCAA and college athletics, they deserve the fair and rightful compensation that they certainly do not currently receive. Here is exactly why student athletes in the NCAA should be compensated for what they do for their colleges, on and off the field of play.

Student athletes in college are held to a higher standard than normal students since they are juggling a lot more in their lives. Student athletes have to set aside a lot of time for practice while still maintaining good grades and a social life. Some people believe that because of this demanding schedule that student athletes should be paid. Where on the other hand many believe that they shouldn’t since they choose to be on a sports team, this is a topic that is debated upon by many. One solution could be to lower the tuition for student athletes since they are offering their talents to the school. As long as the students stay on the team they will get some money off their college tuition every year.

College sports these days are a huge money pit, NCAA makes millions of dollars off of student athletes every year. Should the NCAA start sharing the profits with these student athletes, which every year help grow the NCAA brand? It’s an important question that seems to come up every day on television, the internet, and even in the newspaper. Student athletes are going to college on scholarships which are sold to them by coaches, scouts, and other school administration as a commitment to the student’s future. All they ask is for the student athlete to make a commitment to the school by signing a contract to attend, which is called the “letter of intent”. With the students make a commitment to attend this school for at least a four year

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

Over the last couple years, college athletics have hit their peak in revenue and have gained immense popularity in every state across the U.S. With millions of viewers and thousands of athletes, college sports have become a huge part of American society. But with this popularity also comes the controversial question of college athletes being paid more than their athletic scholarships for the revenue, admissions, and excitement they bring to their universities. With both sides having valid viewpoints about the idea of college athletes being paid or not, the argument is debated more and more every year as college sports popularity continue to rise. But for the meaning of this paper and for everything college athletes do for their schools, they should be paid for the money they bring to their school, that they receive none of in return, the 43.3 hours a week they put into their dedicated sport, which is an average work week, and the countless other abuses they are put through by their universities to play the sport they love.

Over the past few decades, college athletics have grown in popularity, making collegiate sports the most revenue producing attraction at a college or university. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) additionally receives an abundant share of the revenue the colleges have profited. With the two large corporations receiving this share of money, the debate as to whether college athletes should be compensated beyond the traditional scholarship has become an issue in all colleges and universities. To avoid the athletes thinking they are not being acknowledged for their worth, the National Collegiate Athletic Association should establish new means to compensate college athletes that does not involve any form of an employee salary.

Should college athletes be paid? is questioned regularly. There are many people who want to pay college athletes and many against the idea of paying athletes who play sports for their college or university. If you really think about it and keep reading you might realize that it's not really that good of an idea to pay college students a traditional annual salary just like a professional athlete gets paid.

There has been amplified debate on the treatment, education, training of the college athlete. To avoid exploitation of athletes, “The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), formed in 1905, set bylaws requiring college student-athletes to be amateurs in order to be eligible for intercollegiate athletics competition” (Schneider n.p.). Intercollegiate athletics have dramatically changed over the last several decades. Currently, intercollegiate athletics generate tremendous amounts of revenue, remarkably in football and basketball. College sports in America is a