Television Subsidies Should Not Support Sports Subsidies

Joe Posnanski, a sports journalist and former columnist for Sports Illustrated, weighed in on the controversial issue of college athletes receiving money as a service of their play. “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid” published 2011 from the Norton Sampler starts off by introducing one of his main arguments that “College athletics are not about the players” (Posnanski 585) but instead are about the alumni and the colleges themselves that people support. If player on a team left and made their own team would that colleges alumni now support their semi-pro team, no chance. College Supporters love the youthful feeling and the how close they feel too it. He shows how big time college athletes do get paid in tuition, room and board, food,

No one expects somebody to work two fulltime jobs and not get paid for it. Nobody would think it would be fair to work so hard and not receive any form of compensation. This is exactly what is happening to student athletes. Student athletes are not only fulltime students, but also are fulltime athletes. There are two very decisive sides to this argument. On one side the NCAA claims that the student athletes are amateurs and cannot be paid. They also claim they are paid in other ways such as a full ride scholarship to a top level education. The other side of the argument states that the work load of a fulltime student and a fulltime athlete is almost unmanageable and the NCAA is making millions off of their work and sweat. This is an issue

Sports Stadiums are an iconic staple of American tradition. However not everything about these venues is positive. Team owners take advantage of laws and fans to meet their own goals. Citizens and city officials from various locations have taken up their grievances with the NFL in the past. And it has gotten to the point where even political parties join together to bring to light issues with the organization. NFL stadiums are not good for cities because they take advantage of tax payers, hurt citizens on an economic level and cost them billions in subsidies.

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. This has resulted into increased revenues for the National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA] and the participating colleges, which has fuelled 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

In the spring of 2014, the Northwestern University football team did something that has never been done before in the history of college sports. Several scholarship players voted on whether the team should unionize. These same players believe that they should be compensated for their play on the athletic field. Countless collegiate sports fans also believe that college athletes from around the country should be compensated for playing sports; however, paying college athletes would cause multiple problems in college athletics. Most people do not understand how much student athletes are given to them free of charge just to attend a university, while the majority of other average students are stuck with the burden of paying for their education. College athletes should not be paid since schools do not have the money to pay student athletes, it would not be fair for athletes who do not play football or basketball, and they have athletic scholarships that allow them to receive a free education.

Should NCAA Athletes be paid? Getting paid to compete in collegiate sports has become a hot topic of debate for the world of sports. Many sports analyst would argue that without athletes, the big money in college sports disappears. Some sports analyst would say that college athletes are already paid when athletes receive an education. Both sides of the argument have valid points. Is there a price for education? Should athletes benefit from revenue generated from games?

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.

I think College athletes should not be paid because they are getting a big shot on whether they go on to the big leagues.And i think that since they are getting a scholarship for free or discounted tuition to that school, that is giving them their big shot. So i feel like they would be a little ungrateful to ask for money and they are getting a huge shot to make a lot of money. I also feel like they should not be paid. I think they should pay more time focusing on playing because if they do good then they will move on to bigger and better things.

For a long time now, college sports have become the core of higher level education systems. College athletes have assumed a very important role in the overall college experience. These courageous, determined players lift the spirits of a vast amount of people in audiences all around the world. As one already knows, these athletes attract millions of fans each year and as such successfully bring in millions of dollars. Should they be entitled to a portion of this money while financial support for academics falls behind? Although college athletes massively increase profits for their school, they should not be paid in order to achieve balance between academics and athletics.

An important topic in the athlete discourse community that was able to show different genres, is the topic of college athletes getting paid. The debate goes on, but with two different genres on the same topic different views will be given and analyzed as well as same views. One of the genres is a video sponsored by ESPN and Recruiting Nations. In the video the Top Ten High School Seniors were asked the question “Should College Athletes be paid?” the title of the video. There are members committed to different colleges that play college football or basketball and there are also students from colleges that are not involved in any extracurricular activities agree, disagree, or even both. It is a major debate, using two different genres in this discourse community the members of this community will give different views of their opinions and ideas on why college athletes should get paid for playing collegiate sports or why they should not get paid playing sports.

Is there any good reason why college athletes should not be paid for their ability? Great inquiry. Some individuals argue school players are being paid; it’s known as a grant or scholarship (Cooper 1.) Others argue that a full grant doesn't cover everything a customary school understudy needs (Schneider 3, Majerol 2.) Every single sentiment had great focuses.

Proponents of subsidizing sports stadiums is a great decision because the economic impact it will have on the community is great for two main reasons. First, sports stadiums are massive construction projects. In fact, one could compare them to a medieval cathedral in their attempts to dominate a skyline and inspire pride in one’s city And, just like these cathedrals, they are very expensive, and massive building projects that would require many years of hard painstaking labor. For example, the proposed stadium for the Los Angeles Rams in Inglewood, California, was predicted to cost $3 billion and add 22,000 construction jobs to the economy of Los Angeles, California. Although construction jobs do eventually disappear once a stadium is constructed once the games begin, so does the massive consumer spending. For example, more than 3.5 million people saw the St. Louis Cardinals play at Busch Stadium in 2015.

The value of entertainment in our society is arguable. We as a society constantly search for new ways to entertain ourselves; professional sports are a major contribution to our source of entertainment. If those who support athletes and their sports have no problem paying to see them,

In the United States, new sports stadiums are commonly seen as a vital part of the redevelopment of a city having a great economic growth with the production of jobs and a positive income builder. After this, the owners of the pro sports teams with millions and millions of dollars of subsidies for the construction of new stadiums and arenas and expect these facilities to generate economic benefits exceeding these subsidies by large margins. However, a growing body of fact indicates that professional sports facilities, and the franchises they are home to, may not be engines of economic benefit anywhere claims Sachse, “. In reality, sports franchises typically account for a very small proportion of the total economic output of the cities in which they reside.” Some economical studies on the amount of income and employment in US cities find no evidence of positive economic benefits associated with past sports facility construction and some studies find that professional sports facilities and teams have a net negative economic impact on income and employment. It just shows that these results suggest that at best, professional sports teams and facilities provide non-pecuniary benefits like civic pride, and a greater sense of community, along with consumption benefits to those attending games and following the local team in the media; at worst, residents

Each of the  stadiums are funded in unique ways, communities do not benefit from new stadiums, and stadiums do not save a struggling downtown. Foremost, stadiums hurt public schools, and this money should be used for more important public services.  There are many  reasons we subsidize sports, but stadiums do not help the economy, and there are no net benefits from stadiums.  Teams strive for new stadiums to create an image,  but there are  options so that a community will not loose a team to another city without building a new stadium.