Why D1 Athletes Should Be Paid

College sports are a phenomenon that keeps viewers coming back for more. Stated in an article on Money Nation the NCAA makes an estimated $1 billion per year and this number is still growing. What really is insane is that all that money is made off of college athletes, who don’t get a penny from that total number. The debate on whether or not college athletes should be paid has been around for decades and probably will still be here for years to come. Paying college athletes would make the teams unfair, change how hard players will work to get better, affect the amateurism of college sports, and lastly influence the athlete's willingness to participate in college sports.

Amongst the controversy surrounding the NCAA’s recent crackdown on violations with regards to college programs compensating players and players accepting compensation from universities and outside sources, one question has understandably been brought up. It is a question that was bound to be asked sooner or later, and one without an obvious answer: should college athletes be paid? It is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, question that surrounds the world of college sports. The answer, quite simply put, is no.

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.

What college athlete would not want to be paid to play the sport that he or she loves? The real question is, though, should college athletes be paid for their roles in a college’s athletics? They are many points to each side of this recent controversial topic, which is why this has been made into such a hot debate in the past couple of years. As of right now, these athletes are not getting paid, but many of them truly believe that they should. Others believe that they already are being paid through certain types of scholarships and don’t deserve anything more than that. With that being said, there are two sides of this topic that have quality points.

Do you want to get paid for playing a sport in college? (http://www.experienceproject.com/question-answer.php) College players should receive some payment for playing for their schools. College athletes put their bodies on the line each game they play, paying college athletes would help to begin creating a sense of financial awareness, (https://smartasset.com/retirement/should-student-athletes-be-paid ) and some athletes don't have enough money to pay for food or stuff they need and with the money they have left over they can buy things.

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.

Both sides of this argument have a strong case for why student athletes should, or should not be compensated. The problem might not be what it looks like at first. The main problem is the amount being spent on college athletes and the rising tuition costs for these universities. Duke University 's golf team spent an estimated $20,405 per player (Branstetter). The amount of money being spent on one player on their golf team is represented in the insane amount of tuition which is 60,000 dollars a year at Duke. This is a huge reason as to why colleges are so eager to get a cut of a 60 billion dollar industry. The issue of paying student athletes is not so one sided as athletes work very hard between school and sports, or that

A topic that is very controversial for everyone is, should student-athletes in college be compensated? There numerous evidence that supports in favor and many against the proposition of paying student- athletes who play sports for their university. As a college athlete, students are putting their bodies on the line each game they play. There’s possibility of suffering a traumatic brain injury or being paralyze after physical contact. These athletes are sacrificing their bodies and physical health at an opportunity to play a game which they love, and hopefully play it in the professional level. While that’s taking place, college football and basketball are big business that keep expanding. College sports bring in a large amount of revenues. The result is that many of them fail to graduate. Paying college athletes would not ruin amateur sport because even though most college athletes do get scholarship and should focus on their education it doesn’t help them if most of the time they are not attending classes to be in practice or games. College sports do make a high-income and athletes deserve a portion of the revenue they bring their programs.

Should college athletes be paid? Let’s take a quick glance at the pros and cons of each perspective. For starters, in my opinion, yes, college athletes should get paid. What deserves debate, is the conversation of how to get this done. From my experience, in America, you get paid in proportion to the value you bring to the marketplace. College sports is one, if not the

Should NCAA Athletes be paid? Getting paid to compete in collegiate sports has become a hot topic of debate for the world of sports. Many sports analyst would argue that without athletes, the big money in college sports disappears. Some sports analyst would say that college athletes are already paid when athletes receive an education. Both sides of the argument have valid points. Is there a price for education? Should athletes benefit from revenue generated from games?

The world of sports has grown larger than life over the past century, especially in college. Being a collegiate athlete is, without question, the hardest athletic profession in the world. Not only are students devoted to their sport, which requires an obscene amount of time of preparation, but they are also devoted to their school work. And the award they receive for their hard work? Of course there are the great memories, friendships made, “free education”, or national championships, but are theses students receiving their fair share? Should college athletes be paid? It is a question that has been asked, but never truly answered. College athletes should be paid for their work. I even have the perfect system to see

First, some say that college athletes should be paid because of the fact that the schools and the NCAA make billions. In an article from USA Today, it stated: “NCAA made more than $1 billion for the year” (Mama). On the other hand, they should not be paid because tons of the athletes get scholarships, they are rewarded with a free education, and they are technically getting around twenty-thousand dollars a year. First, in an article from Scholorshipstats.com in statistics from 2015 regarding the amount of scholarship money that was given out was nearly 2.2 billion dollars.

College athletes should not be paid. “ They argue that the main purpose of going to college is to get a education, not to make money” (“Should college”...1). College is not a job, it is a place to learn. Also many college athletes receive scholarships to attend that school. “The value of the scholarships athletes receive during four years of college can be well over $250,000” (Weiss et al.1). Therefore, athletes

Pushing that argument aside, let’s assume that collegiate athletes are considered to be amateurs. If that is the case, then yes amateur athletes should be paid. They should be paid for multiple reasons, but only a couple stand out. The reasons are that they “draw in talent, put their health on the line, and they are the business” (Asia Pacific Economic Blog). The first reason why college athletes should be paid is because they draw in talent to the school. Younger players who are interested in playing sports in college are often going to camps for that sport and while they are there they are getting a feel for the players already on the team. These younger players see how good these collegiate players are and inspire to be just like them. These colligate

For decades student-athletes have been given their all for the enjoyment of their school and respective state they are located in. When you are at the Division I level it is more business, more competition and more money. Even though it isn’t publicly said athlete’s job is to bring in a profit for the university that they attend for funding of their school. Tickets, sportswear, television contracts are making top Division I schools millions of dollars, but; why aren’t athlete’s getting any? In recent times, there has been a huge question that’s in the heads of athletes, coaches, parents which is should they get paid for their play on the field.