The Pros And Cons Of College Athletes

When people hear of college athletics, all they think of is a game. Most people do not realize that there is a million dollar industry going on around these athletes. Eric He, a sports fanatic who writes for the Daily Trojan, states, “The NCAA is a nonprofit, tax exempt organization that just happens to be a billion-dollar industry, raking in $740 million per year from March Madness alone” (par. 7). When the NCAA is generating that much money, how can it not go to the players? It is not the

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.

Student athletes should not be paid. A misconception is that all athletic programs in the NCAA make head-over-toe profit. There are three divisions of intercollegiate athletics, and frankly division three athletic programs don’t make as much or have a profit when compared to division one programs. “Critics of paying college athletes note that only a small number of them compete in sports or on teams that actually generate revenue”. (Paying College Athletes) The truth is only a fraction of athletic programs are actually profitable, while most pose a cost to the institution. The question arises primarily in division one programs and typically in the sports of basketball and football. The argument is made that these institutions receive millions of dollars from their student athletes’ performance, in return they should be paid.

Division 1 college sports like men 's basketball and football bring in an astronomical amount of money every year and the players that help bring in these revenues are not monetarily compensated. Over the years many people have been arguing that college athletes should be paid for playing. Although athletes are not compensated monetarily these players are compensated with an education which is the equivalent of thousands of dollars. Also, many schools can not afford to pay their athletes,the majority of schools barely make any money from their athletics programs, and even if they could afford to pay players it would cause several problems. Remember that a college is established to provide an education, colleges are not established to

A major argument by those who oppose paying college athletes is that they are amateurs who are students first and athletes second. However, that is not nearly the case. Many athletes in college are there to compete and attend school simply because they have to in order to play for that particular team. The NCAA purposely schedules games for times in which players are guaranteed to miss class, for

College athletes receive many benefits while playing for the school of their choice. The endorsements for playing a division 1 college sport is obscene. The college athletes receive many compensations for playing a college sport including free tuition, textbooks, housing, and meal plans. Therefore college athletes should not be paid a salary for playing a sport.

        First and foremost, these college athletes should not be paid because most elite college athletes get sports scholarships. Some of the athletes almost get their full tuition paid for, or at least remarkably discounted. Over billions of dollars are given to athletes. In some cases, the average athletic scholarship exceeds the student’s tuition. For instance, Ohio State tuition is only $10,000 a year, however the average athletic scholarship is $17,856. Therefore, they are having their college tuition paid for, in addition to other perks. Can’t they wait to become professionals?

Playing a college sport today is not just fun anymore. College sports are becoming a business and the athletes are the workers. The money some sports programs make from ticket sales, concessions, and media exposure is tremendous. Students playing sports are the ones people pay money to watch, so do the colleges not pay the athletes since they are the ones that bring in the money. They train year around to make themselves and their team better but what do they see for all of this hard work and dedication. Student athletes do not have time to get jobs so the colleges should be willing to pay athletes some small amount to help with some of living expenses.

For years college athletes have not been paid for their hard work and determination on and off the field. When you buy your favorite college athletes jersey you are probably not thinking about who is getting the money for that jersey;more importantly who should be getting the money for that jersey. Imagine if thousands of people were wearing your football jersey, you would think it was pretty cool until you remembered that all of your hard work and the fame you create doesn't matter because you are not getting any profits of that jersey. While that might sound a little selfish it's not because when you decide to sign a contract you don't think about the free time you won't have to get a part time job, point being college athletes wouldn't

“Were the public to view college football as mainly a business, it might start asking questions. For instance: why are these enterprises that have nothing to do with education and everything to do with profits exempt from paying taxes? Or why don’t they pay their employees? This is maybe the oddest aspect of the college football business. Everyone associated with it is getting rich except the people whose labor creates the value” (Lewis,

A heated debate has been raging over the issue of whether or not collegiate athletes should or should not be compensated for their performance in their respective sports. This issue is of great importance because the NCAA’s (National College Athletics Association) model is based upon amateurism, and the disruption of this model could be the end of collegiate athletics as we know it. The basis of this argument is a pro/con argument between the parties that support the compensation of collegiate athletes and those who oppose it. This means that the argument in question is not one about should they or should they not be paid, it could be argued that the argument is about which side is making a better argument. The primary stakeholders of this argument are the athletes themselves, the parents of these athletes, the athletic coaching staff, the NCAA, and fans of college athletics. Malcolm Lemmons writes in his Huffington Post article, “there has been obvious speculation about college athletes and the significant amount of revenue they have been bringing to their schools and the NCAA” (Lemmons, 2017). This means that a major argument is over should they be compensated for their hard work that they put into generating revenue for their schools. This is not a multifaceted argument, one side seems to be in agreeance that yes, they should, because the universities are using their name and image for free, the opposite side seems to also be in agreeance they no, they should not,

Millions, even Billions have been generated by the National Collegiate Athletic Affiliation (NCAA) for more than 60 years. The NCAA has done this through entryway income, endorsements, TV, tournaments, and so on. In any case, college athletes have not gotten a solitary penny of this income. All the athletes want is money to help them get by in school, but because the NCAA is not paying them they decide to leave school for the professional ranks as soon as they can. While at these colleges, these same competitors are compelled to take out loans that will more than likely abandon them under water until the point when they can profit to pay it off. So now these children are not

Do you think college athletes should take a commision from the millions being made off them, or do you think the hardworking athletes six-figure scollarship is enough? Lets first take a look at why there is even a debate about this; in 2014 former NCAA super star Shabazz Napier was quoted saying, “We do have hungry nights that we don’t have enough money to get food in…” (Lemmons, Huffington Post 2017) This struck a controversy immediatly as multiple athletes started to speak on the topic; the conversation was whether college athletes deserve to starve, or deserve a cut of the 8 billion dollar industry. (Emmerson, Seatle Times 2015) There is obviously more to the equasion than just those to options, which is why I stand in the middle of the

During most of the 19th century most college sports consisted of a pick-up game at best. Very much like BYU Idaho, they had clubs that competed against each other, but very rarely against other schools. In 1852 the first intercollegiate team competition took place when Harvard and Yale squared off in a two-mile race on Lake Winnepeaukee in New Hampshire. Still, from this point in time scholarships for athletics were still very far in the future.

people to forget about the problems that are going on in the world. Many of the problems