The University Of Mississippi And The Shame Of College Sports, By William W. Berry IIi

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

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.

Every year, thousands of student athletes across the world sign the NCAA’s 08-3A Form, also called the “Student-Athlete” form, which waives their right to receive money for the use of their name and image. Like many of us in this class, these college athletes devote their time to their academics while spending additional hours with training and practices throughout the day and receive no stipend in return. This 08-3A form defines college athletes as amateurs, who cannot receive payment for playing their desired sport. While their schools and coaches may make millions of dollars in salaries and endorsement deals and are the highest-paid public employees in many states due to their performances in their desired sport, these “amateurs” can never

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.

With the universities pulling in more than twelve billion dollars, the rate of growth for college athletics surpasses companies like McDonalds and Chevron (Finkel, 2013). The athletes claim they are making all the money, but do not see a dime of this revenue. The age-old notion that the collegiate athletes are amateurs and students, binds them into not being paid by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). This pay for play discussion has been talked about since the early 1900s but recently large steps are being made to actually make a change. There are many perspectives on the payment of collegiate student athletes coming from the NCAA, the athletes themselves, and the university officials.

“College Athletes for Hire, The Evolution and Legacy of the NCAA’s Amateur Myth” written by Allen L. Sack and Ellen J. Staurowsky. In their book, the authors enlighten the reader on such issues as athletic scholarships, professionalism in college sports, and favoritism for athletes as well as many more important legal, and ethical issues that we as a country need to address. In this paper I will not do a standard book report by simply regurgitating the information I read in their book.

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

Howard Chudacoff raises the controversial question of whether or not college athletes should be paid during a time of the year when people are most focused on college athletics, March Madness. Chudacoff is a firm believer that college athletes are given enough amenities as it is and do not deserve extra compensation or paychecks. His main arguments to support his position revolve around the royalties that power five athletes receive in regards to education centers, training facilities, and the fact that these players receive a free education. Chudacoff paints the picture of these facilities throughout his article and appeals to the reader’s pathos by descriptively showing the reader how college athletes really do live like millionaires.

In “Why N.C.A.A Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid” originally published in 2015 in The New Yorker, Professor of Law at Cardozo School of Law, Ekow N. Yankah contends paying College athletes is a “grave mistake” and fails to “recognize the value of sports as a part of education.” In addition, Yankah argues that we should direct elite programs away from exploiting young black athletes but instead encourage intellectual discovery while participating in NCAA sports. Furthermore, the popularity of college athletics can be contributed to the fact that NCAA athletes are students, therefore, more relatable to their professional counterparts. Additionally, Yankah believes paying athletes would diminish the value of academic quality, tradition,

"College Athletes for Hire, The Evolution and Legacy of the NCAA's Amateur Myth" written by Allen L. Sack and Ellen J. Staurowsky. In their book, the authors enlighten the reader on such issues as athletic scholarships, professionalism in college sports, and favoritism for athletes as well as many more important legal, and ethical issues that we as a country need to address. In this paper I will not do a standard book report by simply regurgitating the information I read in their

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.

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

The National Athletic Association’s (NCAA) current policy of not paying college athletes needs to be changed. Athletes need to be compensated for their labor, to ensure their well-being at the Universities instead of using them to gain a profit. There needs to be a change in the world of college sports, there needs to be a Union for college athletes to insure they are taken care of instead of NCAA executives, Athletic Directors and the Coaches of these schools. A quote by Shabazz Napier point guard for the University of Connecticut tells why there need to be a change to the

Over the past few decades college sports has grown in popularity across the United States. But it hasn’t been until recent years that many Americans have started to argue about the big revenues generated by many of the elite sports programs. However the big question that stands out is: should the athletes generating millions of dollars worth of profit a year for their University receive any of the money for their performance? Even though student athletes don’t receive a big paycheck at the end of the month, in one way or the other they do receive rewarding benefits through scholarships and grants because of their ability to be successful on the playing field. Thus, college athletes should not be paid because they are receiving a free education through scholarships and earning countless other benefits for being part of the university’s athletic program.

“Over 460,000 NCAA student-athletes – more than ever before – compete in 24 sports every year,” (NCAA). Many college athletes are well-known by sports fans, their names are used in advertising, and they generate millions of dollars in revenue to the schools. Because of this they must receive an unimaginable amount of compensation. They don’t – not even a cent for their time. The label “amateur” put on these athletes allow schools to refuse student-athlete compensation.