The Pros And Cons Of College Athletes

College sports have a big market on the major school levels. These major schools can bring in 30 to 40 million dollars per year to the school through the athletic programs. The players get none of this share of money even though they are the ones who have to put themselves at risk during these tough games that provide the school profit. You may say that these college athletes are getting a free education at their choice of university but some many say they should get paid. Today as much money that runs in and out of these schools there is a huge controversy to whether or not these student athletes should get rewarded for their hard work on and off the

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.

Colleges receives enough money from their athletes from games that can pay their athletes at least an stipend . For example, on average an Alabama football game received $36,199,233.00. Colleges make money off of their college athletes. “86% of College athletes

Yes, there are reasons why college athletes should not be paid such as “ Education is money”. Some colleges provide more than just money they provide a home, free athletic uniforms and accessories for the athletes and much more. “Keep in mind that student-athletes are not employees of the university, rather they are students first and athletes second. The university can indeed make money from the sports programs; however, for those that do, the money simply goes back into the athletic program to fund the non-revenue sports” (Dennis A. Johnson, Ed.D., John Acquaviva,

Some might argue that the schools make so much money of them because the players technically make up the team. "The NCAA, as a whole, makes $6 billion annually... players themselves don 't see any of that money, even as they risk career-ending injuries every time that they step onto the court, field or rink." Yes, of course the school has to make money to pay for the jobs and expensive that come with being on a division I team. Many of the big football schools like Alabama, make extensive amounts of revenue off their football team and that attributes to other events on campus. The football player 's athletic ability

Throughout the years, the United States has been struggling on whether or not college athlete students should be paid. According to the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association), association that regulates college sports, it is against the law to pay athlete students. Even though they are a lot of lawsuits and complains the law remains the same. Student athletes should not be paid because: it would not be profitable for the universities, athletes should go to college for an educational purpose rather than for a business purpose, and paying them would change the essentials of college sports.

I understand that the main priority of all colleges is to educate its students and allow them to graduate and start a career. I agree that education is the most important thing in college, but people believe if these athletes were to get paid, that they would worry less about studying for their next test and more about the big game coming up. This is not the case because if these students had even just a little extra financial benefits for playing a sport and being talented, then it would help them in life by allowing them to stay in school and further their education. These students are putting their bodies on the line just to participate in something they enjoy that requires many long hours away from studying and still force them to get passing grades in their

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,

College sports seem to overshadow the real reason why there are institutions that provide higher education. Now, more than ever, student athletes receive more attention from universities than students who are not athletes. College sports, especially football, have changed the way universities are supported financially. Most of these sources consider how athletics are consistently being prioritized over academics in universities across the United States. The authors who believe that college sports are a distraction to students will primarily use logos to support their argument, often referencing to grades and graduation rates. Other authors who consider intercollegiate sports as something unique to American universities use pathos to describe the sense of school spirit and opportunity for scholarships that school sports may provide. To support these claims, rhetorical strategies of ethos, logos, and pathos is used throughout the sources when they include references to history, current events, statistical data, and interviews.

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.

Debate on how to treat college athletes has always been an issue among the college, NCAA and even students. People take different stances on how college sports should be considered. As you can easily see in Penn State, there are students studying abroad from different countries with diverse cultures. As it is, college is considered as a multi-culture society which sports in college should also be multicultural.