Student Athletes Paid Case Study

For about a decade, the debate between whether collegiate athletes should be paid while playing has been contemplated. Now, the focus has moved from all sports to two specific areas, football and men’s basketball. Sprouting from many court cases filed against the NCAA to some ugly sandals dealing with the athletes themselves. In the 2010 – 2011 time frame, this controversy really sparked up chatter; eventually leading the current pled for sport reformation. Our student athletes are the ones who are at the expense here stuck in between this large argument. Over the past 10 years, there has been minor things done for either side and the players themselves have started taking things into their own hands. The year 2010 a total of 7 student

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.

College athletic programs are among the most popular sporting events in America. With this rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue in recent years. In 2014, the NCAA made over 900 million dollars in revenue. Some collegiate coaches, such as Kentucky’s John Calipari, have yearly salaries in the millions, not counting incentives and endorsement deals. While, clearly, money is being made, NCAA regulations ban collegiate athletes from being paid. Many question this rule and argue that athletes at the college level earn and deserve pay for play. The debate to pay or not to pay college athletes rages on despite the latest court ruling supporting NCAA policies. Because colleges and universities earn such a profit from sporting events, many fans feel it is only fair to distribute some of the wealth to the players. Supporters of paying student athletes feel that these young men and women should be fairly compensated for the time demanded of the athletes and the stress put on the athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Those in favor of paying college athletes contend that athletic and academic work ethic at both high school and collegiate levels will improve, as well as, fiscal responsibility in these young adults. The NCAA argues that paying athletes would negatively affect their

When it comes to college athletics, there always will be a problem that arises. It is one of the most controversial topics there is. One of the main issues within athletics is the idea of whether to pay college athletes or not. Several studies have been done along with articles from various sources. This has been on the rise especially since “March Madness” is coming up. “March Madness” may only consist of three weekends, however, an 11 billion dollar deal is made to televise the games (Wilbon). This is when you have to take the time to sit back and contemplate whether these college athletes really are getting the fair end of the stick. Under NCAA laws it is forbidden to pay these athletes for their performance yet at the same time they

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 athletics is a very diverse organization involving a lot of students, mainly as the players, and non-students such as officials, coaches and others. The leading governing body for college athletics is the National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA. College sports is itself a big industry involving sponsorships, TV networks, endorsements, retail products and marketing. But in spite of it being a big business, the players are not compensated for the work they deliver. This opens up two opinions: should players be paid, or should they not? Kristi Dosh’s article, “The Problems With Paying College Athletes”, (UNCLEAR)discusses where the coaches’ money come from to pay student athletes. On the other hand, Mark Cassell’s article, “College Athletes Should Be Able To Negotiate Compensation”, debates how athletes should be able to negotiate their compensation. This paper will evaluate the evidence of both Dosh and Cassell in order to determine which argument is more effective.

The NCAA and the universities represented by it are now making more money than ever through their athletic programs than ever before. However, due to amateurism regulations set by the NCAA, the college athletes that generate the massive revenue the NCAA receives are not paid at all. The article opens with the argument that college athletes should be paid for their play. The argument is supported through information proving that the NCAA undervalues athletes through the money they generate for their school versus the amount of scholarship money the school provides them with. The article also discusses how the NCAA also prevents athletes from marketing their own image and

An issue that has been a well-known topic of conversation recently is the subject of college athletes getting paid or not. This issue has been circulating amongst sports fans throughout the country. Everyone from the fans, players, parents, and media groups all have opinions on this matter. Over the past ten years college athletics has gained an enormous amount of popularity and income from American audiences. As a result of this, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has been debating about collegiate athletes getting paid for their participation and I am going to discuss the reasons for why people are for it and why people are against it. The real questions most people are wondering is: Is it ethically right to pay college

Since its inception in 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, commonly known as simply the NCAA, has pondered the burning question of whether student-athletes should be compensated for their play. Currently, the NCAA employs an amateurism policy, an eligibility regulation that all potential Division I athletes must abide by to participate in their respective sports. This set of rules prohibits players from receiving any form of compensation, whether that be as a result of participating in a sport, being awarded prize money, or signing with an agent. Athletes are allowed to accept financial aid administered by the university, but this generally small subsidy for education is accompanied with uncertainty, and is the only form of “payment” they are permitted to collect. However, there is sufficient evidence that college athletes should be paid as compensation for the money they make for the NCAA, the negative effects that sports have on the players ' lives, the benefits that the sports bring to the school, and for the potential profits missed on social media because of NCAA regulations.

During the 2014 fiscal year, the NCAA, also known as the National Collegiate Athletic Association, had total revenue of nearly $1 Billion. How much of that went to the 460,000 NCAA student-athletes, you may ask? Zero dollars and zero cents. The debate on whether or not student-athletes should be paid, specifically college football players, continues to grow. With this, it becomes increasingly more difficult to deny the fact that college sports are a multi-billion industry and coaches are being paid out multi-million dollar contracts over several years as a result of whether or not their players succeed on the field.

Despite devoting “forty to sixty hours per week to their sport most of the year, which is more than many full-time jobs, Division I football players aren’t considered employees and lack basic economic rights under the NCAA’s cartel restrictions” (Johnson). The NCAA made “$912.8 million dollars last year and are now poised to top the eye-popping mark of $1 billion in annual revenue” (Clotfelter). These types of figures prove that revisions must be made when it comes to paying student athletes. To be clear, “student athletes do not need salaries or monthly paychecks, even though the NCAA runs just like any other professional sports league” (Johnson). Rather than, they should simply be allowed to live within their means like anyone else in America.

The NCAA, formerly known as the IAAUS, was founded in March 31, 1906 and is the official non-profit intercollegiate organization that represents athletes from all colleges and universities. Subsequently, it became permanently known as the NCAA in 1910. In the last few decades, college sports have grown vastly in popularity and as a result of this popularity, the growth of monetary revenue for institutions have increased substantially (Mondello et.al 106). With the success of college athletics, it is no wonder the monetary gain has come to the forefront and is now one the greatest debate in reference to sports. Should college athletes get paid as if they are professionals already? Paying college athletes would deter the sole purpose of universities which is to provide quality education. Student athletes are not professionals, therefore, paying student athletes would be difficult to justify. College athletics in the various programs do not generate the same amount of revenue even though athletes would put in the same effort. College athletes should be informed upon signing the contractual agreement to participate in varsity sports that it is in exchange for an all expense paid education and that there is no monetary reward involved. Students should not expect to receive monetary payment as if they are employed, and this should not be a matter of contention during the tenure at the university. The transition from academic to economic would not be an easy one because there are

Every year in the United States thousands of collegiate student-athletes participate in a variety of different sports, and currently they do not receive paychecks for their performances. College athletics have attained an extensive popularity increase among Americans over the past few decades. The result - increased revenues for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA); therefore, the participating colleges are fueling the debate of whether or not college athletes should collect an income. College athletes should not be paid to play because it will negatively affect their college experience. Rather, they should be compensated for their dedication to the sport. Many student athletes accept scholarships to play at a college or university, which allows the student to attend the school for free. This is fair compensation to the athlete as a college education today can cost as much as $20,000 to even $50,000 at some higher level schools. Essentially, they earn a free education and in return they have the opportunity to represent their school in a particular sport. Furthermore, athletes will begin to feel like they are playing at a professional level and that is exactly what they are not.

Standing at the helm of college sports is the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), a non-profit organization that regulates college athletic programs to ensure the safety and well-being of student-athletes (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2015). Founded in 1906, the NCAA has grown to be one of the largest tax-exempt organization in the U.S., generating more than $800 million dollars each year (Treadway, 2013). Because of the NCAA’s substantial revenue, student-athlete advocates, players, observers, and even some coaches have begun to question whether players are being paid a just wage for their work.

Over the last several years, college athletics have gained monumental popularity in the United States. With the rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue. Some college athletic programs have revenue in the millions. Yet with this large sum of money, no college athletes are legally compensated for their work. According to NCAA rules, “You are not eligible for participation in a sport if you have ever: Taken pay, or the promise of pay, for competing in that sport” (NCAA Regulations 1).