Essay on The Name of the Game: Unpaid College Athletes

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.

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 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

The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) was founded on March 31, 1906. It was founded by Theodore Roosevelt. Its headquarters are in Indianapolis, Indiana (www.wikipedia.org). The mission of the NCAA is to “be an integral part of higher education and to focus on the development of our student-athletes” (ncaa.org). The first inter-collegiate sports began in 1852 when

“SLAVES OF BIG-TIME COLLEGE SPORTS” by D. Stanley Eitzen explains that college athletes are not being treated fairly and we need to change for the athletes best interest. First off, it states that players are exploited economically, making millions for their teams, but provided only with a subsistence wage of room, board, tuition, and books; they are controlled with restricted freedoms; they are subject to physical and mental abuse by coaches. Later in the text, it explains how “These rules reek with injustice. Athletes can make money for others, but not for themselves.” (Eitzen 3) This source will be used to describe and give examples of the opposing views and skewed image of these college athletes lives and privileges.

The NCAA believes “that a student-athlete is a student first and athlete second.” Student-athletes benefit more than from playing a sport that they love. The graduation rate is higher among the student athletes than the general student body. “NCAA studies show that student-athletes enjoy high levels of engagement in academics, athletics and community: have positive feeling about their overall athletics and academic experiences: attribute invaluable life skills to being a student-athlete: and are more likely to earn similar or higher wages after college than non-student athletes.”

College athletics assume a large role in the entertainment industry of America. Each week, millions of people tune in to watch their favorite team, buy tickets to go to the games, or spend money on university athletic merchandise to show their pride. The NCAA and universities benefit enormously from college sports. The top 10 total revenues generated by universities were all well over the $100,000,000 mark in 2012 (“College Finances 2012”). The University of Texas tops the list with $163,295,115 total revenue from athletics (“College Finances 2012”). Last football season, Texas A&M University quarterback Johnny Manziel won the Heisman Trophy. As the first freshman to ever win the trophy, he propagated over 1.8 million media impressions which translated to $37 million of media exposure (Cook). The University’s licensing revenue jumped 23% this past year due to the success of one player (Cook). The NCAA itself generated $871,600,000 in revenue from the championship games (“College Finances 2012”). All of this revenue is impossible without the student-athletes. The NCAA is strict on making sure that athletes should be treated no different from any other student (Blias). However, the athletes are involved in a heavily commercialized multi-billion dollar industry. As amateurs, athletes remain restricted solely to scholarships as the only form

One of the most controversial subjects we as individuals hear about this day in age is whether or not college athletes deserve to be paid. Many people argue that these athletes do intact, deserve to be paid for their time and hard work. NCAA athletes create a name for themselves by playing and performing well on their college teams. The better these athletes perform, the more publicity the school revives. This then leads to higher ticket sales and stores around campus selling jerseys and other clothing items with athletes names and numbers on the back. NCAA schools have become comfortable with using athletes’ names to bring in a revenue for the school, and yet the athletes never see any of that money. On the other hand, many people believe that these athletes do not deserve, nor should they expect to receive payment in return. They believe that these scholarships and the education are payment in itself. Some even bring up the question on if it is affordable or even realistic to pay college athletes.

One question that needs to be answered first is, what is the NCAA? The NCAA or (National Collegiate Athletic Association) are the members that make the rules for college sports at most colleges and

By 2017, the National Collegiate Athletic Association had not amended the status of banning student-athletes from being paid. This, in turn, has allowed higher educational institutions to exploit college athletes into making revenue-generating opportunities without giving college athletes their fair share (Blutman, p 7). Individuals of the NCAA are against paying college athletes claim that there is no compelling strategy to quantify a fair share of all athletes. However, the college athletics association, NCAA, is a billion-dollar generating enterprise established by athletes who did not receive any amount as compensation (Blutman, p 8). Regardless of the questions and lack of an adequate compensation

Is an athletic scholarship really enough of a “payment” to reimburse athletes for the billions of dollars made by the NCAA every year? This issue of paying collegiate athletes, especially football and basketball players, has been around for many years. Athletes, students, bystanders, and NCAA analysts and authority figures have a strong opinion about paying college athletes. Whether college athletes should be paid or not is a debate topic that is more prevalent today than ever.

As of today, there are over 460,000 NCAA student-athletes that compete in 24 different sports while in college throughout the United States (NCAA). Over the past couple decades, the argument for paying these college athletes has gained steam and is a hot topic in the sports community. However, paying these college athletes is not feasible because most universities do not generate enough revenue to provide them with a salary and some even lose money from the sports programs. These collegiate student-athletes are amateurs and paying them would ruin the meaning of college athletics. Also, playing college sports is a choice and a privilege with no mention or guarantee of a salary besides a full-ride scholarship. Although some argue that

College athletes are some of the hardest working individuals around. Athletes have a routine that includes brutal practices, intense games, and difficult college courses. College athletes carry a tremendous weight on their shoulders. Compensation for college athletes has been a controversial subject for years. Many individuals have their arguments in support of each side. However, no definite decision has been determined in this matter. College athletes should get paid for their performance because their sport is their job; the players have other financial responsibilities they need to handle and their

College athletics has become a very prominent phenomenon in American society within the last few decades. A new American dream of becoming wealthy through sports at both the collegiate and professional level is rapidly growing. Today’s young minds strive to join the ranks of the worlds greatest and college athletics is the beginning of that dream. At the collegiate level athletes sacrifice a great amount in order to be eligible to play the next big game. Today, a college athlete is not permitted to be given any money or marketed in a way that profits the school or the athlete. A growing controversy pivots on whether college athletes deserve to make money for all their hard work. Every year, the NCAA and universities earn millions of dollars from athletes that every average Joe loves to watch. For instance, the University of Southern California (USC) probably made a few million from their stars Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush. Should these athletes be given some of the earnings since the money was made because of them? After considering the viewpoints of those who argue that college athletes should not be paid, this essay argues that athletes at the collegiate level should be compensated. College athletes should be paid because of the amount of money that the schools receive, the amount of money that the National Collegiate Athletic Association receives, and the sacrifices that college athletes make in order to maintain

There has been amplified debate on the treatment, education, training of the college athlete. To avoid exploitation of athletes, “The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), formed in 1905, set bylaws requiring college student-athletes to be amateurs in order to be eligible for intercollegiate athletics competition” (Schneider n.p.). Intercollegiate athletics have dramatically changed over the last several decades. Currently, intercollegiate athletics generate tremendous amounts of revenue, remarkably in football and basketball. College sports in America is a