Intercollegiate and Interscholastic sports have become today’s most popular sporting events in the southeastern part of the United States, which have force sports networks such as the Eastern Sport Network (ESPN) and Sports South Network (SSN) to broadcast the majority of the sporting events several times a week. These networks are spending billions of dollars to ensure that the collegiate and high school sports industries are popular and fulfilling to society. Sitkowski (2008) stated that the pressure to win and the thought of making large amount of revenue have force colleges and high schools to concentrate on finance, instead of their educational mission. In addition, Duderstandt (1996) believed colleges and high schools have allowed television and the constant desire for visibility to distort the nature of competitive sports. The college and high school coaches, as well as athletic directors are experiencing pressure from the alumni, fans and administration to win now not later, which has created a conflict between the academic and athletic communities on many campuses. Even though television networks like ESPN and SSN has turn intercollegiate and interscholastic athletics into prime time events, many universities and secondary schools are continuing to promote the mission of their institution which is to educate young men and women (Duderstandt, 1996).
Stenson (2004) believed that the pressure to win in sports at any cost has caused some athletes simple to burn
The article responds to the debate about if college athletes should be paid on top of their scholarships/benefits. Critics of college sports argue that these student athletes are being exploited because it is possible for schools to generate revenue from TV contracts and other beneficial arrangements. Ackerman and Scott, both commissioners of a conference/sport, respond by stating “College is a time from learning, and college sports provide young men and women alike a chance to learn, grow, graduate, and achieve great things in life.” The purpose of this article is to educate the audience, critics of
Collegiate sports have turned into a billion dollar industry and are probably just as popular, if not more popular than professional sports. College athletes put their bodies on the line to play a sport they love, many with hopes and dreams to one day make it to the professional leagues. Athletic facilities are the major money makers for all universities. Colleges bring in billions of dollars in revenue annually, yet athletes do not get paid. Some fans believe athletes should not get paid due to their sports level being “amateurish.”; however, this is far from the truth. There is much more to being a college athlete than just practicing and playing games. These student-athletes must practice, weight lift, go to meetings, travel, go to tutoring and study groups, all the while maintaining sufficient grades. This is very tedious work and is very time consuming. College athletes have a high standard to live up to (Frederick Web; Huma Web; Patterson Web ).
In his article “The Shame of College Sports,” Taylor Branch (2011) describes how universities are focused on advancing and receiving money from major athletics and having star athletes, but how the universities are not caring for the “student athlete.” The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has made college sports into an unmerited business. However, as years progress more athletes are getting smart and are taking the NCAA to court. The more students that challenges the rules by the NCAA and take them to court, the secrets and undermining values of the NCAA come out and the closer the NCAA comes to an end.
Intercollegiate athletics have been a part of the college experience dating back to 1852, when Harvard and Yale competed against each other in their first annual regatta race. Initially, the entry of collegiate sports onto America’s college campuses was the result of professors’ realization that a complete college experience required more than accomplishments in letters (Lewis, 1970). Furthermore, Shulman & Bowen (2011) assert
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.
The ugly truth behind the money machine that is college sports is that, every year, college athletes are deceived by the institutions the compete for into making them millions of dollars, with relatively little in return. Athletes are said to be given a chance to attend college and to attain a free college degree. However, research has shown that this is not completely true for two reasons. For one, the student athlete will spend most of their time in preparation for competition. Secondly, what education the student athlete does receive hardly serves them outside of maintaining eligibility just so
Its no secret that college sports brings in the big bucks, and without the athletes preforming day in or day out universities would lack the funds to support a school needs. The college sports industry makes 11 billion in annual revenues (Mitchell, Horace, U.S. News Digital Weekly). 11 billion dollars made off of college sports alone is enough its self to pay these student-athletes for their contribution to a school’s success because without them there wouldn’t be this much income. They need these athletes and the NCAA should quit exploiting them for their talents and compensate them. Student-athletes are amateurs who choose to participate in intercollegiate athletics (Mitchell, Horace, U.S. News Digital Weekly). Indeed, they are amateur but in sports the word professional has a different meaning since in all sports there is a 1-2-year stint before an athlete can go from the college level to a professional standpoint. Meaning it only takes a year or two
Athletics are a big attraction to many students when looking at colleges. When college sports programs have success, research done by Pope and Pope show that there is a boost in applications that the colleges receive from students. “Applications [after] a Championship add 7-8 percent, with a big effect in the immediate year and little effect after one year.” It was found that when colleges have winning athletic teams get more applications sent in from all levels of student and not just athletes. This is found true for basketball and football. Not only increase in applications is found but also found after success in football there is a growth in enrollment, this is not found true for basketball (Getz and Siegfried “What Does Intercollegiate Athletics Do…”). “David Schmidly the president of the University of New Mexico said “One of the most effective ways to market your university nationally is to have a really quality athletic program. It helps recruit faculty, students, and donors. It helps with the image of the whole university.” (qtd. in Getz and Siegfried “College Sports: The Mystery of the Zero-Sum Game.”)
The popularity of college sports and its value to entertainment is skyrocketing. The NCAA is the head organization in control of a hundred billion dollar industry. The disgusting disparity arrives at the difference between what
As profits from college sports continuously surge each year, people fail to realize that the school's athletic program wouldn't be prosperous without the many achievements of its elite athletes. Athletes deserve the credit in how much publicity a school gets; has effects on the ticket sales and purchase of sports merchandise.
There has been a lot of controversy on whether colleges should be paying the paying their athletes. Brian Frederick, a board member of Sports Fan Coalition and an adjunct professor for Georgetown University’s Sport Industry Management Program, believes colleges have a broken system when it comes to athletes. Frederick’s contemptuous tone discredits sports fan, who believe college athletes already get paid enough with their education, by stating “If a student athlete is hurt or unsuccessful, the coaches and administrators suddenly discard the noble ideals of “education” and a player is left with nothing.” With the use of metaphors and similes, Frederick convinces sport fans to take action and make the calls in order to continue college athletics
Over the decades, Division I college athletes have been pouring their heart and soul into the game they love. Their passion for sports has allowed them to attend and play for a university of their choice. College sports is similar to a business, especially at the Division I level and the athlete’s job is to bring profit and revenue to their school. In recent years, there has been an ongoing conflict in collegiate athletics: should college athletes get paid? In this essay, I will discuss the effects of paying college athletes, and reveal on how much each athlete is really receiving.
Day-in and day-out college athletes sacrifice their study time and social life just to contribute to the athletic programs they are a part of. The schools offer benefits to their athletes in forms of scholarships and academic help (tutors), but those are only at a small expense compared to the revenue big D1 programs earn during the course of their basketball and football seasons. Lawyers and sports analysts seek to provide a way in which the massive sport’s income can be trickled down to the most deserving of athletes. William W. Berry III’s “Amending Amateurism: Saving Intercollegiate Athletics Through Conference-Athlete Revenue Sharing” written for the Alabama Law Review, and Taylor Branch’s “The Shame of College Sports” issued by The
The “contradiction at the heart of big-time college football,” as Michael Oriard describes it, is the competing demands of marketing and education. The 1890s proved to university administrators that there was an enormous market for collegiate football, which postulated opportunities for university building. Since this ubiquitous realization, there has coincided this blatant, yet unchanging contradiction that academic institutions are permitted to profit off of the services provided by its student-athletes while the athletes must idly accept that they are amateurs, donating their efforts to their respective schools. The schools then direct this revenue toward strengthening their athletic departments, and thus continues this seemingly endless growth of big-time college sports, all while athletes remain uncompensated and academics continue to take a backseat.
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