The Literature On Pay For Play

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.

An issue that has been a well-known topic of conversation recently is the subject of college athletes getting paid or not. This issue has been circulating amongst sports fans throughout the country. Everyone from the fans, players, parents, and media groups all have opinions on this matter. Over the past ten years college athletics has gained an enormous amount of popularity and income from American audiences. As a result of this, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has been debating about collegiate athletes getting paid for their participation and I am going to discuss the reasons for why people are for it and why people are against it. The real questions most people are wondering is: Is it ethically right to pay college

In my previous essay, I chose to address one of the biggest debates in collegiate sports; should college athletes be paid. For decades now school administers, alumni, boosters, and student athletes have been torn between the two sides, and I, for one, am in agreement with the idea of student athletes be compensated financially for all their time and dedication to their respectable sport. As you can imagine, there are many who oppose the idea, but as I stated in my previous essay there are great benefits for allowing student-athletes to be compensated. However, this is easier said than done. Deriving to a solution that fairly compensates all student athletes on every level of competition is no small feat, and will possibly take a few years of deliberation before actually being implemented. In this essay, I will make attempt in providing solutions on how student athlete can be compensated for their hard work. My proposal will include what actions need to be done first, and by whom could assist in the issue. Along with my resolutions, I will provide financial statistics to give support to my proposal and the realness of how compensating college athletes can actually be made possible.

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”, discusses the various problems with paying college athletes, and the biggest question being where will the money come from. On

There are two main ways by which a plaintiff could challenge the NCAA’s no-pay rules under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. First, the plaintiff could argue that the no-pay regulations signify a type of wage fixing that damages not only the market for the student-athletes’ skills but also the value of college sports as a whole. Second, the plaintiff could argue that the NCAA rules create an unlawful group prohibition of those

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

College athletic programs are among the most popular sporting events in America. With this rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue in recent years. In 2014, the NCAA made over 900 million dollars in revenue. Some collegiate coaches, such as Kentucky’s John Calipari, have yearly salaries in the millions, not counting incentives and endorsement deals. While, clearly, money is being made, NCAA regulations ban collegiate athletes from being paid. Many question this rule and argue that athletes at the college level earn and deserve pay for play. The debate to pay or not to pay college athletes rages on despite the latest court ruling supporting NCAA policies. Because colleges and universities earn such a profit from sporting events, many fans feel it is only fair to distribute some of the wealth to the players. Supporters of paying student athletes feel that these young men and women should be fairly compensated for the time demanded of the athletes and the stress put on the athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Those in favor of paying college athletes contend that athletic and academic work ethic at both high school and collegiate levels will improve, as well as, fiscal responsibility in these young adults. The NCAA argues that paying athletes would negatively affect their

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 first president of the NCAA, Walter Byers, once stated, “All of this is not fair, and I predict that the amateur code now based on a forgone philosophy and held in place for shear economic purposes, will not long stand the test of the law” (Schooled-The Price of College Sports). So why has it? This controversial issue on whether college athletes should be compensated or not has been debated for years, but still has not been resolved. Although the highly disputed debate on whether to pay college athletes or not is very intricate, evidence clearly shows they should be further compensated.