Summary Of Why College Athletes Should Be Paid

The hot topic in amateur sports has been as to whether or not college athletes should be paid. The NCAA amateur rule states that an athlete in college sports cannot be paid other than their athletic scholarship. These athletes spend a tremendous amount of time at school practice and then working on schoolwork after practice. The NCAA is an organization that oversees all of the athletes that make up the basic unit of intercollegiate sports. The success of the NCAA whether it’s through the sale of merchandise, game day revenue or NCAA tournaments that each individual sports has, despite the absolute success of these tournaments these athletes receive any monetary compensation .Some of the main reasons why the NCAA lack of payments are that it wants to maintain its amateur status and

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.

Throughout my paper I will demonstrate many different ideas on whether college athletes should get paid why they should not. I will talk about the things paying the athletes will do for the NCAA, how it is unfair for athletes to be used and not get anything out of those moments, and they generate revenue for the NCAA just on certain players presence. I will also talk about why college athletes should not get paid. 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.

Should college student-athletes be paid has become a much debated topic. The incentive for a student-athlete to play a college sport should not be for money, but for the love of the game. It has been argued that colleges are making money and therefore the student-athlete should be compensated. When contemplating college income from sporting events and memorabilia from popular sports, such as football and basketball, it must not be forgotten that colleges do incur tremendous expense for all their sports programs. If income from sports is the driving factor to pay student-athletes, several major problems arise from such a decision. One problem is who gets a salary and the second problem is how much should they be paid. Also, if the income

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.

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

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.

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.

There is an issue that continues to grow with college athletes; should college athletes should be financially compensated? Many argue that college athletes are amateurs, and should not be paid, as they receive compensation in the form of education. Others believe that these athletes produce large revenue for their schools, and the athletic sponsoring body, and therefore should be paid for doing so. There are many limitations on college athletes from the NCAA and from the school which they play for. These athletes are strictly forbidden from receiving gifts, monetary compensation or royalties for use of their likeness (Marx 474-75). The NCAA, an organization founded to control violence in college sports, keeps these strong regulations as a way to reinforce that college sports are ameteur sports . To allow college players to be financially compensated many things would have to change, including the NCAA admitting that these are professional athletes. The NCAA would have to change their regulations, and schools would have to determine a pay structure for these athletes. This is a change that should occur, but with some stipulations.

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.

Some people agree with the concept totally. Some people believe its a waste of time and money. College athletes should be payed. They do not have to repay them with money, but in other ways like paying for their schooling, and personal needs. This way they would have control of their earnings, but they couldn't spend it on just anything they wanted.

College athletes should get paid for playing. Also playing in a game is like having a job. You should also get paid for something you love doing. Also getting paid for something you love to do makes you play it longer and better. They should get paid for playing because they can make money in college sports. The rest of the colleges should get paid for playing sports in college, so they can have money in their college years. They can provide for their family and make more money. It will be better to play sports for money.

College athletes should get paid because it will help keep the college athletes to finish their education; their performance, efforts, and dedication deserve more compensation.