Why Are Students Athletes At The College Level Not Compensated? Essay

College athletics is a billion dollar industry and has been for a long time. Due to the increasing ratings of college athletics, this figure will continue to rise. It’s simple: bigger, faster, stronger athletes will generate more money. College Universities generate so much revenue during the year that it is only fair to the players that they get a cut. College athletes should get paid based on the university’s revenue, apparel sales, and lack of spending money.

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.

Many debates, court cases, and articles have been produced the past couple of years debating whether college student-athletes should be paid. I specifically chose this topic because it pertains to me, and I can relate to both sides of the argument. Being a student-athlete at St. Lawrence University, I can attest to how much time athletes put into their sport and all the hard-work put in on a daily basis. On one hand, I see how the student-athlete deems him/herself as a full-time athlete and spend more time practicing and working out for their team than they do in the classroom, which entails them to some sort of compensation. I can also see the other side of the argument, and how the athlete is either getting paid with a scholarship

The amount of money made over the past twelve years in football and basketball has increased to about 300%, which helps fund all other sports (Meshefejian). College coaches are receiving a numerous amount of money for what the players are doing out on the court or field. Also, some athletes feel they need to excel more in the sport than in the classroom which can jeopardize their future. Student-athletes have other costs they need to pay for, but they have no time for a job due to practices, workouts, and games. College athletes should be paid for playing at the collegiate level, because they would focus more on academic studies, have an easier time paying for extra costs, and the colleges earn enough money

In light of the outbreak of scandals and bribery occurring in college athletics, the average person would most likely agree that paying college athletes would escalate the desire for extreme NCAA neglect, which would be an extreme job in all aspects. However, there are even more efficient problems to consider. For example, how much should college athletes get paid and what will those payment increments be chosen by? What if a student-athlete on scholarship ends up with a severe injury halfway through their sporting season? What if a student-athlete does not end up being as superior as thought to be and, although still remaining on the team, does not start or even play at all? These are all problematic things that should surface far more questions. According to College Express, it has been shown that only a fraction of Division I football and men’s basketball programs turn a profit. The other Division I football and basketball programs, as well as baseball, softball, golf, hockey, women’s basketball, and just about all Division II

The NCAA, formerly known as the IAAUS, was founded in March 31, 1906 and is the official non-profit intercollegiate organization that represents athletes from all colleges and universities. Subsequently, it became permanently known as the NCAA in 1910. In the last few decades, college sports have grown vastly in popularity and as a result of this popularity, the growth of monetary revenue for institutions have increased substantially (Mondello et.al 106). With the success of college athletics, it is no wonder the monetary gain has come to the forefront and is now one the greatest debate in reference to sports. Should college athletes get paid as if they are professionals already? Paying college athletes would deter the sole purpose of universities which is to provide quality education. Student athletes are not professionals, therefore, paying student athletes would be difficult to justify. College athletics in the various programs do not generate the same amount of revenue even though athletes would put in the same effort. College athletes should be informed upon signing the contractual agreement to participate in varsity sports that it is in exchange for an all expense paid education and that there is no monetary reward involved. Students should not expect to receive monetary payment as if they are employed, and this should not be a matter of contention during the tenure at the university. The transition from academic to economic would not be an easy one because there are

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.

Many different people brought up that collegiate athletes deserve to be paid. The number one supporters of paying the athletes are the athletes themselves. Each athlete dedicates over twenty hours a week just for the sport and don’t earn anything for it (Entman). The only person that truly statistically benefits is the coaches because their pay salries are based on the team’s performance. The college athletes sometimes feel used because other people and organizations are profiting by using these athete’s

In the year 2014, the National College Athletic Association (NCAA) made almost one billion dollars through ticket sales, merchandise licensing, and TV contracts (Sports). Yet, none of that money ever ends up in the pockets of the athletes, who are responsible for bringing in all of the revenue, who train for countless hours per week, leaving little time for anything outside of sports. Practice and constant travel, added to the stresses of school work, make it difficult for a college athlete to hold down a job. The NCAA is unfairly making money from the athletes, and the athletes should get a cut of the profit. College athletes should be paid to play.

Imagine being one of the best employees working for a billion dollar industry, but despite that, you aren’t paid. That is the reality for college athletes, who should be paid for their athletic ability. In the United States, four hundred thousand athletes are part of the NCAA. Yet, none of the athletes are paid. College athletes should be paid because they make the events possible, and those events generate billions of dollars in profit.

College athletics is a billion dollar industry and has been for a long time. Due to the increasing ratings of college athletics, this figure will continue to rise. It’s simple: bigger, faster, stronger athletes will generate more money. College Universities generate so much revenue during the year that it is only fair to the players that they get a cut. College athletes should get paid based on the university’s revenue, apparel sales, and lack of spending money.

Sports have been an integral part of leisure time for America since the early 1900s, when listening to sports, especially baseball, on the radio was a beloved pastime for many families. Lately, college sports, primarily men’s basketball and football, have become more popular. Now that college sports have grown to such a high popularity level, people are asking, “Should these kids get paid?” Though many believe these athletes should be paid, I do not. Collegiate athletes should not be paid because they are not going to school for sports but for an education; they are not professionals, and therefore, should not be paid as such; and paying them would take away funding all other smaller sports and the overall funding of the school.

There is a reasonable argument that compensation for college athletes is necessary while attending university. However, the reason for this debate cannot be resolved in such an uncomplicated matter. College football and basketball bring in six billion dollars a year. College athletes deal with scholarship gaps that leave them

“The recent explosion of revenues flowing to NCAA member institutions and the relative pittance going to the primary input—the players—for those participating in bowl games and the annual “March Madness” men’s basketball tournament have created growing unease over the distribution of the largesse (Sanderson 116).” Players in the National Collegiate Athletic Association or NCAA are looking for financial aid outside of their academics. The NCAA feels an increasing need to distribute more financial aid towards student-athletes, and they would like “to consider changing restrictions on athletes’ opportunities to earn income beyond their grants-in-aid” (Sanderson 117). This will allow athletes do have more disposable income outside of their studies. For a more detailed study on the topic, Allen R. Sanderson and John J. Siegfried dig into the economic side of paying college athletes in their Journal for Economic Perspectives: “The Case for Paying College Athletes”. With the rapid advancement of technology and social media, the National Collegiate Athletes Association is becoming monopolistic in their large-scale commercialized sports programs. The resources are being allocated to different companies involved in the profit making off of student athletes. The NCAA is developing ways to make collegiate sports more competitive, and one of these ways is to pay the athletes participating in big sports programs such as men’s basketball and football. Their argument is that college

The line between college and professional sports continues to blur where college sports now acts like the minor leagues for professional organizations like the NBA and the NFL. But unlike the minor leagues where players are paid to play in their respective sport, players or student-athletes in the NCAA receive $0 for playing for their school. They do however receive scholarships, some being worth up to $60,000 to pay for tuition and room and board. These athletes are able to obtain a free education through these scholarships but it is not enough. Two of the biggest sports in college athletics, football and men’s basketball, earn millions of dollars in revenue for schools around the country and for the NCAA, yet these athletes do not see one penny of it. The top coaches in these sports earn seven figure salaries with six figure bonuses depending on how well they do in the post season but the players that are generating the money are not being compensated for their efforts.