Why Do College Athletes Get 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.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) makes roughly $1 billion in income annually and the athletes do not receive any of it. This topic has been debated for many years and is still being debated. The debate dates back to the 1980s and now athletes are demanding that they deserve to be paid since profits are made off of them. Some athletes such as former and current basketball and football players came together with lawsuits to federal courts asking for rewards from profits NCAA makes gets of them. Research has opened several different opinions on this matter. There are many pros and cons for paying college athletes. College sports provide a huge source of the university’s income. The athletes, however, receive their scholarship

College athletes are undoubtedly some of the hardest working people in the world. Not only are they living the life of an average student, they also have a strenuous schedule with their specific sport. One of the most discussed topics in the world of college athletics is whether or not student-athletes should be paid money for playing sports. The people who disagree with the idea have some good arguments to make. Primarily that the athletes get to go to school for free for playing sports. Another argument is that if student-athletes were to get paid then it would ruin the amateurism of college sports. People who are against paying the athletes do not want to see the young people become focused on money. “Paying student-athletes

The popularity of college athletics have risen immensely over the past few years. The idea of paying college football athletes has been a continuous debate since the early 1900’s. This paper will debate whether college athletes should be paid a monetary compensation outside of their scholarships. This will be done by examining reasons for and against the monetary revenue for the athletes.

The debate on whether college athletes should be paid to play is a sensitive controversy, with strong support on both sides. College athletics have been around for a long time and always been worth a good amount of money. This billion dollar industry continues to grow in popularity and net worth, while they continue to see more and more money come in. The student-athletes who they are making the money off of see absolutely none of this income. It is time that the student-athletes start to see some of this income he or she may by helping bring the National Collegiate Athletic Association. There are many people who do not think this is in the best interest of the student-athletes or Universities, but that being said there are also many

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.

Now, paying these athletes doesn’t have to be for everyone. Only the high caliber, D1 athletes. The D1 athletes put in all this time and effort to get a scholarship, but don’t see any money. Now that’s not right. These D1 caliber players don’t come around all the time. There are not many of them. Plus the schools that do have these players are super rich. “These teams not only provide their supporters with a steady source of entertainment, but their performance also helps bring notoriety and pride to the universities they represent. College athletics, especially the so-called "revenue sports" of men 's basketball and football, is now a multi-million dollar business that is marketed, packaged, and sold in the same manner as other commercial products” (Acain).

Throughout out the sport, colleges over the United States cash in millions of dollars because of shoe and apparel sponsorship deals but Athletes aren 't get any part of it when they deserve a fair amount. Even though of the students go to college on full scholarship and when there done with school their debt-free. In an article, College

Some college athletic departments are as wealthy as professional sports teams. The NCAA has an average annual revenue of $10.6 billion dollars. College athletes should be paid because of the amount of revenue that they bring to their college. Each individual college should pay its athletes based on how much revenue they bring to the college in which they attend. The colleges that win their Division title, their Conference title, or the National championship, give bonuses to the Head coach of that team. If colleges have enough money to give bonuses to coaches, that means they have money that is left over for the athlete who gives them recognition to pay them. College athletes should be paid based solely upon the performance and success that they have.

One of the most controversial subjects we as individuals hear about this day in age is whether or not college athletes deserve to be paid. Many people argue that these athletes do intact, deserve to be paid for their time and hard work. NCAA athletes create a name for themselves by playing and performing well on their college teams. The better these athletes perform, the more publicity the school revives. This then leads to higher ticket sales and stores around campus selling jerseys and other clothing items with athletes names and numbers on the back. NCAA schools have become comfortable with using athletes’ names to bring in a revenue for the school, and yet the athletes never see any of that money. On the other hand, many people believe that these athletes do not deserve, nor should they expect to receive payment in return. They believe that these scholarships and the education are payment in itself. Some even bring up the question on if it is affordable or even realistic to pay college athletes.

First of all, issues occurring in colleges are rarely black and white. There are so many factors to consider when attempting to make changes, especially within athletics. How could the NCAA determine how to pay student athletes a salary? Could it be determined by which sport the athlete plays? Let’s take a look: collegiate teams make revenue off ticket sales, jersey sales, donations, alumni contributions, etc. Where does that money go? Who helped increase these sales? What happens when one sport earns more revenue than another sport? Would baseball players earn a higher salary compared to bowlers because of the popularity of the sport, and would the starting quarterback make more money than the second string swimmer because of

The college athletes succeed at such a high level, they should be rewarded for their duties. Jeffrey Dorfman, senior writer for Forbes, is one of those on the fine line of wanting to pay the athletes, but at the same time not wanting to pay them. He states “ Student athletes on scholarships are already essentially paid.” He believes that student athletes are getting paid with the scholarship they get, but seeing them rewarded for their hard work would be even better. Scholarships grant student athletes with a place to live, food to eat, a school for education, and all the other essentials. What about that not on scholarship? They do not get the same benefits as those on one. One against paying college athletes is Andrew Sharp, a senior writer for Grantland states “Every Action has Consequences. Someone should explain to college athletes and all the media members out here throwing them a pity party” (Sharp). Although a harsh argument, Sharp failed to realize that for some athletes, scholarships are not paid in full, so they do not get all the benefits. The doubters of he paying college athletes case to re consider their view on this

Around eight million high school students participate in athletics within the United States, and more than 480,000 will progress to compete as NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) athletes during college. However, a study from ESPN found that male basketball and football players at a major university who were deemed criminal suspects were either not prosecuted, had charges dropped, or never faced charges at all– 56 percent of the time. These players were treated better than others and therefore have an advantage over them, thus is preferential treatment. Many coaches and athletic administrators believe that athletes are treated equally compared to their peers, but that is not true. Athletes receive preferential treatment by receiving higher grades in school along with

Most student-athletes playing a sport in college are there on an athletic scholarship. The scholarship is granted to them by their respective schools and is worth anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000. According to Edelman, the football program alone at University of Alabama brought in roughly 143.3 million dollars of revenue. In perspective, that’s about 2 million per player. Even though Alabama is an elite program and brings in more than the average football program, the NCAA brought in nearly $845 billion in 2011 per Sonny. Now it is obvious there many ways a university brings in revenue, but it is safe to say that a player is worth more than that $100,000 scholarship. In fact, a substantial share of college sports’ revenues stay in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches. Now think about what college athletics would be without the world class athletes it has today, or without any athletes at all. If a school didn’t “award” athletes these scholarships, there would be

College sports are big business. For many universities, the athletic program serves as a cash-generating machine. Exploited athletes generate millions of dollars for the NCAA and their schools, and never see a dime. In terms of profit, if all ties with the university were eliminated, an athletic program acting as its own separate entity could compete with some fortune 500 companies. So, why do the vital pieces of the machine, the players, fail to receive any compensation for their performance? The answer lies in the money-hungry NCAA and their practice of hoarding all the revenue. College athletes should receive payment for their play to make their college experience more bearable because they create huge profits and