The Pros And Cons Of Student Athletes Paid

A college education is the most valuable education that most only dream of, a dream not made reality due to not being financially fit to pay for college. Instead of paying full tuition, students are able to pay for college with an athletic scholarship. Whether it be a full ride or the scholarship paying part of it students can play sports while their studies are being covered. But a scholarship doesn't cover necessities like living, food, and travel expenses, but the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) overlooks the problem that college athletes face everyday. “The governing body of big-time college sports, the NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic Association], is caught in a huge contradiction—trying to reconcile a multibillion-dollar industry while claiming it is really an amateur activity. That it is a huge money making industry is beyond dispute” (Stanley).

It is an age old debate on whether a college athlete should be paid. It is a high school student 's dream to play sports at the collegiate level. Many people question why the NCAA, coaches, and administrators are allowed to earn large amounts of money while the student athlete’s hard work and efforts are limited to a scholarship. Others feel that is should be considered a privilege that a college athlete can earn a college degree while enjoying what they love, by playing collegiate sports. Student athletes should not receive payment because they are already receiving payment in the form of an expensive athletic scholarship and are also able to receive the new cost of attendance stipend to assist with further financial burdens.

LeBron James makes 19.07 million dollars a year, Kobe Bryant makes 30.45 million a year, Peyton Manning makes 18 million dollars a year, the average college athlete makes no money at all. Why do college athletes that put in just as much work get paid differently? This is the way many people feel about NCAA's decision to not pay college athletes. There are always people who think teams should pay their athletes but there are just as many who people who disagree. Paying college athletes continues to be a huge debate in the sports world there are pros and cons for both and both need to be considered in the big decision that the NCAA has to make.

The debate about college athletes getting paid has divided people into different opinions on this topic. College athletics has become extremely popular and has turned into a job for many students. Playing a sport in college can make the players more likely to go to the pros. However it could also be a bad thing because the player could be likely to be injured while playing in the sport and ruining their whole career. The articles “College Athletes getting paid?” by Tiffany Patterson (2017), “Should college athletes be paid”by ??? (2017), “A way to start paying college athletes” by Joe Nocera (2016), Hearing held on bid to form first college athlete union. By associated press (2014) discusses the debate about college athletes getting paid it centers around scholarships, money made off of college sports and playing the sport is like having a job.

Due to National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules and regulations no college athlete is able to receive any compensation or endorsement while participating in college athletics. These rules have long been challenged, however, the NCAA does not make any changes. With universities grossing close to $200 million a year, college athletics has turned into one of the top industries in the world. The NCAA, a governing body of college athletics, currently holds all power in college athletics. Without people questioning the NCAA and demanding changes to the monopoly that the NCAA holds nothing will happen to the unfairness to college athletes in college sports today. College athletes deserve to receive compensation in some way for the

In the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia’s definition of “Amateur” it states, during the early 20th century “the American intercollegiate athletic system… adopted amateurism, claiming it developed competitors who were morally superior to professionals” (“Amateur”). Amateurism is the concept that athletes should compete without payment. Until recently, playing collegiate sports as an amateur was thought to be a noble calling. As time surpassed, college sports became a commercialized industry, generating billions of dollars in revenue. When this became apparent, the implementation of athletic scholarships became more relevant. The athletic scholarship seemed to be a more than fair way to delight athletes with some sort of incentive to ensure

College athletes are financially exploited by the NCAA and universities by not being properly rewarded for their services. In the area of college athletics, exploitation should be defined as, “an individual gaining something by taking an unfair advantage of another individual” (Miller). Exploitation in college athletics is especially problematic because student-athletes are not being justly compensated for their services to their school nor are they receiving a true education. Players are compensated for playing with much less than what they are worth because of strict NCAA rules that are in place to protect athletes “from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises” (NCAA). The NCAA protects it’s athletes through its core value of amateurism, which refers to the fact the athletes, “do not receive remuneration for their athletic services” (Miller). The organization is hiding behind their claim of player amateurism to escape the demand for player payment. Although it is a non-profit organization, the NCAA, “has evolved into a multi-billion dollar industry where many of the schools’ annual revenues reach above $260 million” (Miller). Universities and athletic departments, “have gained huge gate receipts, television revenues, national visibility, donors to university programs, and more as a result of the performances of gifted basketball and football players” (Rheenen). When there is a surplus, none of it goes to increasing scholarships, it is used to pay for

Since its inception in 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, commonly known as simply the NCAA, has pondered the burning question of whether student-athletes should be compensated for their play. Currently, the NCAA employs an amateurism policy, an eligibility regulation that all potential Division I athletes must abide by to participate in their respective sports. This set of rules prohibits players from receiving any form of compensation, whether that be as a result of participating in a sport, being awarded prize money, or signing with an agent. Athletes are allowed to accept financial aid administered by the university, but this generally small subsidy for education is accompanied with uncertainty, and is the only form of “payment” they are permitted to collect. However, there is sufficient evidence that college athletes should be paid as compensation for the money they make for the NCAA, the negative effects that sports have on the players ' lives, the benefits that the sports bring to the school, and for the potential profits missed on social media because of NCAA regulations.

As a college student, one must attend classes, complete work specific to their degree requirements and maintain a minimum grade point average as sanctioned by the NCAA to participate in athletics. The NCAA is an “organization dedicated to safeguarding the well-being of student-athletes and equipping them with the skills to succeed on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life”. The NCAA has put in place a set of rules to assure fair and safe competition at the collegiate level. Arguably one the most debatable topics is the NCAA rule that states “College athletes are not to be paid, not to cash in on their prominence, never to cross any kind of line of professionalism.”

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and major division one programs are reeling in millions of dollars from the performance of students at their respective institutions. The athletes are compensated with scholarships in tuition, books, housing, and meals. Even though the athletes are receiving compensation from their universities, student athletes deserve to be paid because of the time devoted to being an athlete, the business behind the NCAA, and the profitability of the athlete’s own image.

Professional athletes were paid less than average wages and would frequently work multiple jobs. The reason student athletes would play their sports was for the spirit of competition and the desire to be better than their rivals. However it wasn’t long before these friendly competitions became more and more heated and teams would do whatever they could to gain an advantage over their opponents. In 1840 “Harvard University sought to gain an undue advantage over its academic rival Yale by obtaining the services of a coxswain who was not a student.” (R. K. Smith, 11) It was at this time that some regulation to college athletics would have to be set in place. In the beginning college athletics were monitored by the faculty of the universities until 1905 when “over eighteen deaths and one hundred major injuries in intercollegiate football” occurred President Roosevelt called for the formation of what eventually would become the NCAA. (R. K. Smith, 12) The NCAA, the governing body behind all college athletics, is ultimately the deciding force behind not paying student athletes today. From humble beginnings the NCAA’s focus has been to preserve “the collegiate model of athletics in which students participate as an avocation, balancing their academic, social and athletics experiences.” (NCAA) In an attempt to preserve this core value the NCAA states in its rules that any student athlete is “not eligible for participation if [they] have ever taken pay, or the

The authors begin the article discussing the creation of the NCAA and how they came to the creation of their amateurism laws, providing a background to as to why college athletes are not allowed to receive any form of monetary payment. Johnson and Acquaviva then present five arguments as to why college athletes should not be compensated. These arguments are that athletes are being paid with their education, new issues would arise with fair pay if college athletes were compensated, college athletes are receiving more than just an education, paying college athletes would eliminate competition, and that college athletes already know what to expect when they sign to play for a university. The authors then provide counter arguments that help to prove that college athletes should be paid for their play. These are that the cost of living is not covered in college scholarships, college athletes don’t understand that they will be set aside if they are injured or benched, and college athletes do not receive more than an education due to their full schedules. The authors then explain some of the plans that could help to fairly compensate college athletes, such as allowing them to receive endorsement deals. Finally, Johnson and

The actions of the NCAA and their treatment of student-athletes has long been a major issue. The world of college sports is a multi-billion dollar enterprise built on the backs of its unpaid amateur “student- athletes”. The evolution of sponsorship and media rights deals are worth fortunes, for which the players receive nothing, except for their degree.

Recently, the topic around college sports has been whether or not college athletes should be paid. Many student athletes have threatened to unionize and have demanded to be paid, for everything from video game royalties and jersey sales, to their god given ability. College sports have become extremely profitable throughout the years, but the athletes who perform all the spectacular dunks and jukes that keep us wanting more, see none of that money. College athletes should be paid as there are many benefits that would come with it.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a business that keeps expanding while the players it supports make nothing. This year the NCAA announced that they are on the verge of reaching the one billion dollar mark in annual revenue. Last year they pulled in an astonishing nine hundred and eighty nine million dollars. Most of its profit growth comes from the division one men’s basketball tournament, which accounts for eighty to ninety percent of their success. With all this incoming profit some players feel as though they are entitled to a piece of the pie. There are currently lawsuits pending and some players have even gone as far as attempting to unionize. Although they are receiving scholarships and get a lot of other assistance,