The Importance Of Reverse Of Pay

College sports are a phenomenon that keeps viewers coming back for more. Stated in an article on Money Nation the NCAA makes an estimated $1 billion per year and this number is still growing. What really is insane is that all that money is made off of college athletes, who don’t get a penny from that total number. The debate on whether or not college athletes should be paid has been around for decades and probably will still be here for years to come. Paying college athletes would make the teams unfair, change how hard players will work to get better, affect the amateurism of college sports, and lastly influence the athlete's willingness to participate in college sports.

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.

Only 2% are drafted into the NFL for instance, while the other 98% are getting a $200,000 education for free. There are eighty scholarship players on each of the 112 Division 1-A teams. This costs a university $16,000,000 to pay for an entire roster over four years (1 “College Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid”). With all of that money being thrown around, it would be difficult for a college to determine which athlete gets paid how much, and if one sport deserves to get paid more than another.

College athletes should receive some sort of payment for playing for their college. Many people believe that college athletes should be paid financially, because they are considered to be taken advantage of by the NCAA and most other school systems, because they should receive pay. Most college athletes are the main reason for huge profits from many merchandise sales; live events such as the game itself, and media and live coverage also provide sales increases. Differently from the professional sports, the athletes don’t get any type of cut. College teams may not have the same national expectations as the professional ones, but they are just as important, if not, even more important than professional athletes. Millions of dollars of merchandise,

Do you want to get paid for playing a sport in college? (http://www.experienceproject.com/question-answer.php) College players should receive some payment for playing for their schools. College athletes put their bodies on the line each game they play, paying college athletes would help to begin creating a sense of financial awareness, (https://smartasset.com/retirement/should-student-athletes-be-paid ) and some athletes don't have enough money to pay for food or stuff they need and with the money they have left over they can buy things.

If the NCAA decided to pay college athletes, it would create more problems than solutions. For example, if student-athletes are offered a salary, most likely the cost of school tuition will go up because the money paid to the student-athletes must come from somewhere and the revenue from sporting events and memorabilia will not be enough to cover all student-athlete salaries as well as expenses to run all the college’s sports programs. In addition, not all college sports draw the same fan base and therefore, income is greatly varied between sports programs which in turn will create an unfair balance when determining the salary for each student-athlete. All student-athletes regardless of which sport they are participating would expect equal pay.

But why should a student athlete be paid in the first place? Their just athletes right? They go to school just like everyone else? What makes them so special? What makes a college athlete different than the average student is the amount of revenue that they help bring to their selected colleges. This type of revenue is made up from ticket sales, merchandise, media rights and contributions. “USA today” reported that the University of Texas generated $167.7 million dollars from their athletic programs, and that’s just one school. With this in mind, imagine just how much money other colleges are making from their athletics. Sure one can make the argument that they should not be paid because they are not professionals, but one can’t ignore the fact that they are bringing in millions of dollars and seeing none of it.

The argument of paying college athletes outside of the scholarships they may be receiving is becoming a rather popular topic. “Should College Athletes Be Paid?”, an article in Santa Clara Law written by Ron Katz, Isac Vaughn and Mike Gilleran weighs both sides of paying student athletes. They argue the point that regardless how you look at the situation, a handful of college sports have become a business. Sports such as Men’s football and basketball being broadcast on television now generate approximately $750 per year for colleges. It is acknowledged that the ones who are bringing in this money (the student athletes) are not receiving revenue from the sport they are playing. The idea of treating all sports the same was possible back in the day but today you cannot deny that one sport may bring in much more than another. Therefore Gilleran et. al. concludes that each school should be able to choose if they want to start using the business idea and paying the athletes for their work. “Alabama head coach, Nick Saban’s contract extension calls for him to make $45 million over the next eight years. His players, on the other hand, receive only the NCAA scholarships that does not even cover their basic living expenses.” (Gilleran et. al. par. 27) How is it that

This could solve the problem with some players not having enough money to live. According to College Student Journal, 54% of college students said that student athletes should be paid for their services, but if they were to get paid, colleges might have to increase tuition and fees in order to get enough money to pay the athletes (Schneider, 2001). Some people say that paying college athletes will reduce the amount of illegal payments to the athletes. That is not necessarily true, because illegal payments still could occur to ensure that an athlete will complete a task. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) makes around $100 million per year (Edelman, 2013, P.61). Some people might say that it is wrong for the NCAA to not give any money to the athletes that make most of the money for them, but it is against the rules to pay them. If colleges were to pay students, the college trying to get a student to attend their school in order to play football would have to offer more money than several different colleges, in order to intrigue the student into going to that college (Kisska-Schulze, 2014, P.32-34). There is a difference between a professional sport and a college sport. “The difference between a purely commercial model (professional sport) and the educational model is the purpose for generating revenue: in a commercial entity, the purpose is to make a profit,

After graduation, college athletes receive additional benefits, even if they are not part of the admittedly tiny group of athletes with the skills to play professionally (McCormack 21). Status as a former star athlete, or even an ordinary one, can open many doors in the professional world, especially in fields like sales and marketing. People enjoy associating themselves with athletic performers, especially those from their own alma mater. In addition, many colleges have developed special programs to help former athletes return and – if they have not received their degree, as many do not – complete their education ( 22). These programs make it a relatively simple process for a former college athlete to obtain his or her degree. More and more colleges are providing programs to help former athletes in a variety of ways, with the focus on helping them earn a degree ( 25). Some of these programs are still available to

In a country who prides itself on a capitalist economy based on private ownership, trade, competitive markets, and wealth accumulation there are still many places where it can be seen that this type of economic system is not allowed for everyone. One of those places is at the NCAA who brings in extreme amounts of money through selling the broadcasting rights to athletic events and selling tickets at the championships. An example of this is the TBS deal to broadcast march madness from 2011-2024 which only lasts 3 weeks each year signed for a staggering $10.8 billion (Wilbon 1). With that type of money being made off of just one deal and plenty more to go around the question should then be asked why are college athletes not getting more compensation than just their scholarships with all the money that is being made off of them? This question has brought up intense debates due to college athletics’ being considered amateur sports and because of the complexity it seems it would take to actually be able to pay all athletes fairly. However, living in an economic system based solely on supply and demand and with the clear abundance of funds in the NCAA, college athletes deserve to be paid.

College athletes should not be paid to play the given sport they participate in. And as of right now, this statement stands true for the most part but is starting to become blurred and pushed extremely hard for. Over the years the NCAA and other organizations have had many conventions and uproars over the subject of whether or not college athletes should or should not be paid. The main two sports that this debate come up in are men's college basketball and college football, especially during march madness and the college football national championship. Now, I respect anyone who puts in the time, work, and excitement college athletics bring to the world or sports, but they should not be paid.

“A partner from the St Louis - based firm Bryan Cave says that athletes go to college to get a degree. Some just end up playing sports.” (Cooper et al.1). Many people tend to think that college is all about sports. Attending college is a privilege. (Cooper et al.1) there fore, athletes are already being rewarded by attending college.

Most student-athletes playing a sport in college are there on an athletic scholarship. The scholarship is granted to them by their respective schools and is worth anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000. According to Edelman, the football program alone at University of Alabama brought in roughly 143.3 million dollars of revenue. In perspective, that’s about 2 million per player. Even though Alabama is an elite program and brings in more than the average football program, the NCAA brought in nearly $845 billion in 2011 per Sonny. Now it is obvious there many ways a university brings in revenue, but it is safe to say that a player is worth more than that $100,000 scholarship. In fact, a substantial share of college sports’ revenues stay in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches. Now think about what college athletics would be without the world class athletes it has today, or without any athletes at all. If a school didn’t “award” athletes these scholarships, there would be

College athletes should not be paid to participate in sports at the collegiate level because it is a choice, they receive some form of scholarship, and it would cost more money. To begin with, one article suggests that the student has the choice to play sports. All colleges offer a variety of different majors and minors to choose from. College is not just about sports, it is also about getting your education, whether you take it seriously or not (Let’s Not Pay College Athletes, Chudacoff). Furthermore, Smith states that college athletes receive some form of scholarship. On top of having their tuition paid for, they also receive benefits, like room and boarding fees waived and their textbooks paid for. These athletes get to enjoy going to college