Summary: Why College Athletes Should Be 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.

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.

The question of whether or not college athletes should get paid is of heated debate in todays times. While many believe that student athletes are entitled to income, It remains undougtibly a concern of moral interest to universities across the country. This paper is going to explain the pros and cons that come with allowing student athletes the right to receive a salary.

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

During the selling of NCAA Football games by EA sports, some schools made up to $140K a year while the players received nothing. Other events, such as the FBI crackdown of college staff members paying high school athletes to commit to the college they’re apart of, as well as the release of LaMelo Ball’s signature shoe (which led to him signing to a Lithuanian team in fear of his NCAA eligibility being revoked due to him receiving money from the shoe) has only mounted to the importance of the debate of whether college athletes should be paid or not. Combined with suggestions from former college athletes, ruined dreams due to injuries, to players losing NCAA eligibility, it is clear to me that they should stop being overly restricted and

One of the most important choices a person if given throughout their life is the choice of what college to go to and what to study. Few people are gifted with athletic talents that allow them to receive an athletic scholarship to pay for their college expenses. When it comes to the issue of whether a college athlete should be paid one can see that the players are being cheated out but the NCAA. The NCAA could very easily incorporate a system in which the athletes could earn a salary while playing their sport which earns their school money.

In the professional leagues or sporting activities, sportsmen get pay for their efforts and talents in entertaining the public. Sports acts as a source of income to the participants in the league. It is a different scenario when it comes to NCAA management league. Students do not obtain pay for their services, efforts, talents, and entertainment show to the public. College athletes display their talents to the entire public who enjoy watching them perform. Some scholars argue that students should obtain pay for their efforts and talents while others maintain that college athletes should be contented with what they have as participants. College athletes' payment issue drags the development of the game within the association (NCAA). The debate of whether college athletes should obtain payment for their services needs to rest by extensive solution. The perfect way to solve the issue at hand involves additional payment for the services of the college athletes. This would supplement the scholarships and accommodation fees university and college athletes enjoy currently. College athletes are not gaining payment for participation in the NCAA league because of benefits they acquire from colleges, the act would add to issues in the budget that colleges would not be able to afford. College athletes should obtain payment for their talents and efforts because everyone in the sporting career enjoys payment and wages, to satisfy their needs as human

Now some of these players are felling exploited for their talents and believe they should be compensated. “More than 25,000 former NCAA Division 1 football and men's basketball players have filed for status as members of two class-action lawsuits settled by EA Sports, the NCAA and its affiliated licensing company” (Holder B.8). The players felt their names and likenesses had been used illegally and in mid-July a California judge agreed with them. The sixty million dollar lawsuit was decided in favor of the players. Due to the large number of claims submitted the maximum payout will be less than seventy two hundred dollars, most will see substantially

The question about payment to college athletes is consistently raised in discussions because the decision is extremely controversial. It is important to mention that there are both pros and cons on this matter. Payment to college athletes can be perceived as a positive opportunity or negative drawback of involvement in professional sports that distracts them from learning. Young people should be able to develop their individuality, socialize and learn instead of being focused on the job before getting a diploma. In fact, the vast share of research sustains the idea. A payment to young athletes for their sports achievement should be perceived as an issue because they are not yet responsible for spending wisely, they get distracted from academics and could start living a frivolous life that would deteriorate not only their professionalism but also damage the future.

College athletics is a billion dollar industry and has been for a long time. Due to the increasing ratings of college athletics, this figure will continue to rise. It’s simple: bigger, faster, stronger athletes will generate more money. College Universities generate so much revenue during the year that it is only fair to the players that they get a cut. College athletes should get paid based on the university’s revenue, apparel sales, and lack of spending money.

Recently, the topic of compensating student athletes has become a popular subject of debate within the media. Deciding whether or not to pay student athletes may seem simple at first glance; however, further research into the debate reveals many economic studies that provide persuasive information benefitting one side over the other. Paying student athletes would be more economically efficient and to not allow payment would be considered price fixing, also this would reduce the negative externalities faced by the student athletes in the future. Although paying players would have economic benefits, it would also have high costs to the fans in the form of higher ticket prices and a loss of competition within college sports. Student athletes should

Athletes have been arguing for many years now about how the universities should pay them for playing. Athletes believe if it wasn’t for them then the amount of fans and income the universities produce would be dramatically

The article is directly related to the topic concerning financial compensation for student athletes across the United States. In the article, “Paying College Athletes”, the main topics that are discussed mainly include the debate of whether college athletes should be compensated by their respective institutions, insights involving the value of the scholarships these athletes receive, court actions that attempted to force

Because of recent court cases such as O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the issue of pay-for-play – whether student-athletes should be compensated for the participation in certain intercollegiate athletics – has been featured in the news and been the subject of much scholarly writing. This