why college athletes should be paid

College athletes are taken advantage of and deserve to be compensated for their services while playing sports. These students are exploited and used to make money and out of everything that particular school makes, the athlete never given a penny of it. All of the hard works, blood, sweat and tears that they put into that

Many believe that college athletes should not be paid. The main debate against compensating college athletes is that they are at the university for educational purposes and playing sports is a benefit. The NCAA states, “Student-athletes are students first and athletes second. They are not university employees who are paid for their labor” (McCauley 10). Universities get all the financial benefits of the money earned from sports played from things such as team jerseys, sports passes and tickets, etc. Many argue that it is only fair to give a portion of the profit to the players that earned the money. It is very important when arguing for or against paying college athletes to not take into fairness, but to hold

College sports is a multi-billion dollar industry. Each year thousands of high school students are recruited to play college sports, but under strict conditions. Students are required to do well in athletics while keeping up with their academics. College athletes spend up to forty five hours per week on practices, training, and games. In addition, they spend roughly forty hours on their academics. The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletics Association) does not think it is necessary to pay these athletes because they want to maintain the “amateur sport” status. According to Stanley Eitzen in his “College Athletes should be Paid, “The universities and the NCAA claim their athletes in big-time sports programs

These same individuals work 40 hours in their game each week; these "individuals" are college competitors. The NCAA, the governing body for significant college games, is the business doing this to college competitors. This is an issue of abuse and control by expansive institutions over basically destitute individuals, the NCAA is controlling them in bearings to profit for everybody while doing everything conceivable to keep the players out of the money. College Athletes merit benefit since they get huge income into their system, the NCAA, and they put huge amounts of time into their game. The competitors at these institutions acquire huge amounts of money into their school each year and merit pay. These Universities are misusing these competitors by not giving them back what they make for their school. The numbers say it all with regards to the misleading of the competitors by their own schools. In 2004, more than 40 schools acquired more than $10 million, with 10 of them getting over $30 million. A few competitors around the country are worth more than $1 million to their

College athletes should be paid. The athletes put in as much work as the people who do get paid. Why should they not be paid? There are many pros for why they should get paid, but there are also many cons on why they should not get paid. The athletes should get paid because of how hard they work in season and the off-season. Do not pay all of the athletes, but pay the ones who are at a D1 college. The athletes should get paid because they put in the same amount of time as the pros do, and the pros get paid.

How much harder would athletes work if they were paid for their performance on the field, track, or court? College athletes are put to the test each and everyday, they risk their health to entertain millions day in and day out. College athletes deserve part of the money due to the revenue they bring in for their schools and for the NCAA, they deserve the money because they do not have time to get a job because they are practicing and training at least 40 hours a week, they should also get paid because they are used as marketing models for the ncaa and for their universities. College athletes also should not get paid because they are already getting paid in scholarship money. College athletes deserve to get paid because they are putting their bodies on the line just so the NCAA and their sponsors can make money.

In the recent past, college athletics has gained massive fame in the United States. The immense fame of the college athletics has developed over the past twenty years. The massive development and fame of the college athletics have resulted in improved incomes for the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA). Due to increased revenue received by the NCAA, the participates in athletics in the colleges has fuelled the argument of whether the college athletes need to be paid and rewarded more than just the athletic scholarships. In this research paper, I will take a stab at to respond the question whether they should be paid by delving the explanations for and against the payment of the college athletes (Adams and Becky 108).

No one expects somebody to work two fulltime jobs and not get paid for it. Nobody would think it would be fair to work so hard and not receive any form of compensation. This is exactly what is happening to student athletes. Student athletes are not only fulltime students, but also are fulltime athletes. There are two very decisive sides to this argument. On one side the NCAA claims that the student athletes are amateurs and cannot be paid. They also claim they are paid in other ways such as a full ride scholarship to a top level education. The other side of the argument states that the work load of a fulltime student and a fulltime athlete is almost unmanageable and the NCAA is making millions off of their work and sweat. This is an issue

I was asked to conduct an interview with someone who had knowledge about my research topic, to help provide me with information. My research topic is whether college athletes should receive pay, therefore, I conducted an interview, over email, with one of my high school coaches Mike Zarger. Not only is Mike a coach, he was also a student athlete at Penn State University. Zarger was a phenomenal athlete himself, striving in both cross country and track. He is also a father of two girls that went to West Virginia University and the other went to Virginia Tech University to run cross country. I decided to conduct my interview with Zarger because he was a college athlete, a coach, and not to mention a parent of two college athletes himself.

One of the biggest questions concerning college sports is not about who has the best recruiting class, or where the best coach is headed after their contract ends. The biggest question in NCAA sports is whether collegiant athletes should be paid by their university or not. College athletes have never been legally paid, and that needs to come to an end. NCAA athletes give us outstanding performances, creating memories and leaving their names in a historical manner. Yet, at the same time they are barely able to make it by day to day.

After all, these athletes are attending their respected school on a scholarship because of their talent, but what happens when that talent can no longer be used? What happens when an athlete is no longer able to share their talent due to an injury or other medical condition? In such circumstances where an athlete is no longer able to play due to a career ending injury, the individual loses their scholarship. Now, not only will the individual have to pay for a surgery, but also the rest of their tuition. According to an article in The New Yorker “Why NCAA athletes shouldn’t be paid” written by Ekow N. Yankah,"The athletes in major football and men’s basketball programs are disproportionately black, many from poor and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds”

When providing a service, people get paid for the service, so why are college athletes not paid for performing a service with their athletic abilities? Almost anyone who is involved with sports, whether it be watching them or playing them, has an opinion on whether or not college athletes should be paid. My opinion on this controversy is that college athletes should be paid. College sports make billions of dollars, so there is definitely room for athletes to payed in some way. There are three main reasons as to why I believe college athletes should be paid. One is the athletes do not have enough time to hold a steady job because they are constantly practicing or playing the sport they are involved in. If they can work there are rules as to what they can make. The second reason is the colleges the athletes play for and the NCAA both make money off all of the athletes’ names and the coaches of the athletes are paid very well. The last reason is the scholarships of some athletes can be taken away if they do not meet the performance standards of the college they play for.

Strauss, Ben, and Steve Eder. "College Players Granted Right to Form Union." The New York

Rose Bowl to see your favorite player. You might've even bought tickets and wore their jersey to the game. The truth is, you never would've bought that jersey or ticket if they didn't play, so the college company is making huge sums of money off of your favorite players name. Many people believe that at least a small percentage of the money made off merchandise should be given to the players who made it.

            If college students are spending their time playing these sports and not working, they should be getting paid for it. Not only are these students forfeiting their time to study, talk to friends, and even relax after classes, but they are missing an opportunity to have jobs. “Players’ relationships to the school they play for should be spelled out in an individualized pay-for-service contract rather than an NCAA-standardized letter of intent that impinges on basic freedoms” (Marx, 475). The NCAA requires that students are enrolled full time and play football to gain the scholarship offered. There is an argument by Hartenstine on this subject that “Some 15 percent played professional football as a first career, but 15 percent were corporate executives, 13