Summary Of Here's Why We Shouldn T Pay College Athletes

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.

If college athletes were to start being paid, many questions would start to surface. The big question that would pop up first is, “What sports get paid?” Statistics show that football and basketball are the major revenue sports that actually make money for their universities, while most other college sports do not. While football brings in on average the most revenue, basketball is close to second. Another question that may be asked is, “How will the money be split?” Like many others, the writer believes that the biggest question lies in which areas of competition would get paid. Famous Fab Five member Jalen Rose states that, “Every student athlete should be paid $2000 a year” (Salvador). However, if you do that, in fairness, would one pay a star football player and a star rowing team member the same amount of money? Or would a woman athlete get paid just as much as a male athlete? If this not the case then it becomes extremely unfair and would just cause controversy. Fairness is important when coming to this, especially the fairness between females and males. There are several different questions that need to be reviewed and that proves why college athletes should not be paid. It would cause absolute chaos and a plethora

“Here’s Why We Shouldn’t Pay College Athletes” written by John R. Thelin, illustrates how collegiate players should be prohibited from earning any funds from universities or private agents because they already receive a great amount of grants and scholarships based on their ability in a certain field. The author touches on the scholarship model vs the salary model, he leans slightly towards the scholarship model by using the example of how taxes play into the situation if a player captures a salary. Also Thelin states that student athletes should have something to look forward to in the professional leagues, a large income does just the trick. Furthermore, the reaction I had when I read John Thelin’s statements included that he is one hundred percent spot on with his perception that participants in college activities are already getting their schooling for free. As well as the idea that these

Howard P. Chudacoff, a professor of history at Brown University, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal titled, “Let’s Not Pay College Athletes.” Chudacoff outlines the reasons why athletes in the major two collegiate sports, football and men’s basketball, that participate in a power five conference; Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big XII, Southeastern, and PAC-12 Conferences: should not be paid for their services to their institutions. Chudacoff provides examples of academic centers and practice facilities to strengthen his point that collegiate athletes are given enough royalties to go along with a free education.

On Tuesday, March 8th, I attended the book signing for Indentured: The Inside Story of the Rebellion Against the NCAA. The author of the book, Joe Nocera, started by reading a section of the book about Ryan Boatright and the NCAA struggles he dealt with. Next, the audience was able to ask questions. The majority of the discussion was about whether college athletes should be paid or not. Joe Nocera thinks college athletes should be paid because he thinks that being a college athlete is a full time job. He also believes that college athletes should take two courses each semester and be granted a lifetime scholarship. He thinks they deserve to have an education that will last for the rest of their lives. The questions about college athletes

College athletes are the face of the NCAA, without them it would be nothing. Even though they are the ones who keep it running, they are given no money. It is a corrupt system that takes advantage of its athletes. The athletes bring in millions of dollars to their schools, scholarships do not cover the full cost of attending school, they are forced to go to college before the pros, and the athletes work more on their sport each week, than the average american works on their job, yet they receive none of the revenue.

"College Athletes Should Not Be Paid due to Post-Eligibility ). But this downplays the exploitation. The athletes in major football and men’s basketball programs are disproportionately black, many from poor and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. For many of the college athletes this is the ¨only game in town¨. Paying College Athletes is a huge mistake because it is a quote on quote ¨misdiagnoses the disease but because it suggests that the only cure is to put the patient out of his misery.¨ It fails, to recognize the value of sports as a part of education. This can be seen in the numerous student athletes, from basketball to tennis players, who pour so much time into training and playing games with no hope of going to a major league level. Many of these kids, in even the biggest sports show dedication and determination for long periods of time after it is clear to them that they will never be on the professional level. ¨At many of America's largest colleges and universities, athletics has become overemphasized at great financial, academic, and moral costs. As average for the entire period of 2004-2006, only 16 teams broke even. ¨ ( NCAA Division I Institutions:

Nine days till Christmas break. Just nine long and exhausting days separating us from sweet, freedom and our own lovely beds! Have you ever thought about how crazy it is for us to be so desperate and excited for a break? We just had one! Thanksgiving was a quick tease for our soon long month of, lets be real, sleeping and Netflix. Thanksgiving was full of food, shopping, sleep, and football. Even if you’re not a huge football fan your Thanksgiving was in some way affected by America’s favorite sport. Whether it was watching your team play, or watching some family member going crazy at the TV, my dad…. Football is a traditional part of our day of thanks. Have you ever thought about what it would be like to be playing in one of those games on

The argument of whether or not the NCAA should pay its athletes has been debated for around 8 years now, and right when it seems like there may be a breakthrough another reason comes up for the issue to be put on hold. College athletic programs are multimillion dollar programs and the athletes who make this revenue possible are getting the bare minimum to make it by in these college programs. Last year the Texas A&M athletic program was at the top of the NCAA revenue list bringing in $192,608,876. A third of that revenue comes from ticket sales alone, which leaves the rest to television rights, licensing and other donations. In the NCAA there are 26 colleges which are bringing in over 100 million dollars in NCAA revenue (USA Today 1). But still, Horace claims that “there is a misconception that athletic programs in general are profitable and are making hand-over fist. While truly most operate at a cost to the institution”.

The NCAA brings in millions of dollars annually and the student athletes do not get a dime out of it. Recent literature has focused on the issue of compensating college athletes. This researcher found articles and statements that led to belief some coaches and people do think college athletes should be compensated for their efforts. The researcher wanted to find reasons why critics and non supporters believe college athletes should not be paid, also to find reasoning behind those that do support. This researcher believes it is unfair to exploit these college players, and to not include them in the profits they cause.

The authors begin the article discussing the creation of the NCAA and how they came to the creation of their amateurism laws, providing a background to as to why college athletes are not allowed to receive any form of monetary payment. Johnson and Acquaviva then present five arguments as to why college athletes should not be compensated. These arguments are that athletes are being paid with their education, new issues would arise with fair pay if college athletes were compensated, college athletes are receiving more than just an education, paying college athletes would eliminate competition, and that college athletes already know what to expect when they sign to play for a university. The authors then provide counter arguments that help to prove that college athletes should be paid for their play. These are that the cost of living is not covered in college scholarships, college athletes don’t understand that they will be set aside if they are injured or benched, and college athletes do not receive more than an education due to their full schedules. The authors then explain some of the plans that could help to fairly compensate college athletes, such as allowing them to receive endorsement deals. Finally, Johnson and

The final decision on whether to pay college athletes has the ability to change college sports dramatically in many aspects. Paying college athletes would be a negative addition to college sports. There are plenty of uncertainties when it comes to the amount of money each player would earn, especially with thousands of colleges in America in different financial states.

The athletes are given a scholarship that can be worth up to $65,000, that pays for almost all costs they will encounter in their life. (Here's Why We Shouldn't Pay College Athletes, (2016).) One way of paying college athletes would be to completely get rid of their scholarship and for them to receive a salary to cover their college costs and anything else they want to buy. This salary would be taxed by the state and federal taxes. (Here's Why We Shouldn't Pay College Athletes, (2016).)

Division 1 schools have generated a total of $9.15 billion in revenue during the 2015 fiscal year. (2) That's a lot of money for students to make. College athletes will go straight from highschool to going to another 4 -12 years of college. They are using their adulthood to do more school. Not start a family, or get money for their family. Should the NCAA pay them a small cut of it? If student-athletes make all of this money for the league, they should at least get a piece of what they have made for them. Could we possibly be seeing college players make more money than the average adult? Sometimes players have injuries. Who would pay for that? Would the school or league pay for it?

Colleges give athletes the opportunity to play sports at the highest level possible while making a constant progress towards a degree. According to the statistics, these colleges earn a huge amount of money from letting these athletes perform. As an example the NCAA and CBS/Turner sports had a $10.8 million deal for televising march madness during 2011-2014. The enormous amount of money received by the NCAA have turned into the controversy if athletes should be rewarded with money, or with a full-time scholarship during a period of 4 years. My proposal is to not pay college players, because even though they spend a ton of time working hard to perform well, and they miss college classes; an average college player in division I receive a full-time