The Literature On Pay For Play

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

Athletics in colleges in the United States of America forms the fundamental component of inter-college sports. Despite the massive triumph of the NCAA competitions, athletes do need some payments in monetary compensations to reward them for their tireless efforts in the athletics. The chief reasons provided by the NCAA for lack enough income to pay these athletes is that its cravings to uphold its amateur status and those payments would prejudice the veracity of the college athletics. Therefore, in my arguments the college athletes should be paid for the following reasons (Baird 01).

For about a decade, the debate between whether collegiate athletes should be paid while playing has been contemplated. Now, the focus has moved from all sports to two specific areas, football and men’s basketball. Sprouting from many court cases filed against the NCAA to some ugly sandals dealing with the athletes themselves. In the 2010 – 2011 time frame, this controversy really sparked up chatter; eventually leading the current pled for sport reformation. Our student athletes are the ones who are at the expense here stuck in between this large argument. Over the past 10 years, there has been minor things done for either side and the players themselves have started taking things into their own hands. The year 2010 a total of 7 student

Every year, thousands of student athletes across the world sign the NCAA’s 08-3A Form, also called the “Student-Athlete” form, which waives their right to receive money for the use of their name and image. Like many of us in this class, these college athletes devote their time to their academics while spending additional hours with training and practices throughout the day and receive no stipend in return. This 08-3A form defines college athletes as amateurs, who cannot receive payment for playing their desired sport. While their schools and coaches may make millions of dollars in salaries and endorsement deals and are the highest-paid public employees in many states due to their performances in their desired sport, these “amateurs” can never

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.

“College Athletes for Hire, The Evolution and Legacy of the NCAA’s Amateur Myth” written by Allen L. Sack and Ellen J. Staurowsky. In their book, the authors enlighten the reader on such issues as athletic scholarships, professionalism in college sports, and favoritism for athletes as well as many more important legal, and ethical issues that we as a country need to address. In this paper I will not do a standard book report by simply regurgitating the information I read in their book.

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.

Throughout the years college sports have been about the love of the game, filled with adrenaline moments. However, the following question still remains: Should college athletes get paid to play sports in college? Seemingly, this debate has been endless, yet the questions have gone unanswered. The National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) plays a vital role in this debate. The NCAA is a billion dollar industry, but yet sees that the athlete should get paid for their hard work and dedication.

Ever since college students started playing sports, back in 1879 when Harvard played Yale in the first collegiate sports game, the question of whether college athletes should be paid was addressed. From that point on athletes, coaches, and college administrators have brought forward points agreeing or disagreeing with the notion of paying college students. The students argue that they deserve to be paid due to the revenue that they bring for the college and because of the games they play and the championships they win. At first the idea of paying college athletes was out of the question, but now the argument has gone from a simple yes or no to a heated debate. Since college athletes are given a free education, they should not also be paid.

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.

In the United States, college athletics are growing larger by the minute. College athletics contribute not only to the recognition of colleges and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), it also contributes to the income of colleges and the NCAA. Without student athletes, these colleges and the NCAA would not reap the benefits of college athletics, such as: increased awareness of colleges, higher application rates, and of course the revenue brought in from game and event tickets, apparel, and contracts for licensing and television rights. Since the student athletes, who devote a great deal of time to their sport, are the cog in the machine that is the NCAA and college athletics, they deserve the fair and rightful compensation that they certainly do not currently receive. Here is exactly why student athletes in the NCAA should be compensated for what they do for their colleges, on and off the field of play.

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.

Abstract:  Collegiate athletes participating in the two revenue sports (football, men's basketball) sacrifice their time, education, and risk physical harm for their respected programs. The players are controlled by a governing body (NCAA) that dictates when they can show up to work, and when they cannot show up for work. They are restricted from making any substantial financial gains outside of their sports arena. These athletes receive no compensation for their efforts, while others prosper from their abilities. The athletes participating in the two revenue sports of college athletics, football and men's basketball should be compensated for their time, dedication, and work put forth in their respected sports.

College athletes should be paid to play and schools need to consider compensating these athletes for their talents based on the revenue they generate. Given the fact college sports is a big money maker for many universities and colleges, Kenneth Cooper, author of the article, “Should College Athletes be Paid to Play”?, argues that “college athletes should not be paid due to the fact they are still amateurs who are representatives of the schools they attend” (Cooper). Additional arguments made by Cooper against paying the athletes, include the fact that “these men and women are not just athletes, but students first” (Cooper). From my point of view, this statement would be true only if the emphasis were realistically placed on academics. Therefore,

Salaries, wages, and compensations have always been major and generally controversial topics in democratic America. And, with the rising popularity of college athletics, particularly football, compensation (or lack thereof) for college athletes has recently been a hot topic in American sports. While some of the debate stems from the similarity between responsibilities college athletes have to their programs and those of professionals, most of the issue involves the principles of amateurism. Recent “scandals” involving college athletes such as Terrelle Pryor, Johnny Manziel, and Todd Gurley have raised questions about the ethics of amateurism, particularly with regard to the NCAA organization. The issue is found in a very gray area, where there is most likely no definitive one-size-fits-all solution, but the resolution of this issue is one that will change and shape the future of college athletics across the national landscape.