Paying College Athletes Essay Research Paper

from broadcasting and advertising student-athletes. If you take the revenue of the NCAA (all one dollar bills) and stacked them on top of each other, they would easily exceed thirty-five stories in height, which would be the equivalent to the RSA Battle House Tower in the state of Alabama. Meanwhile, the NCAA is sitting on this expansive “lump of cash” and does not have any idea what to do with it, and by no means wants to share their revenue with athletes. The NCAA needs to use this “lump of cash”

Should college student athletes be paid for the services they offer during their years of study? This has been one of the biggest, ongoing debates in college sports for years. Successes of bigger schools such as, the University of Alabama and the University of Texas in today’s society are major contributors to this debate. Those that are pro-salary argue that college athletes bring in too much revenue at their schools not to be paid. In my opinion, college athletes should not get paid because they

900 million dollars. College athletics today are a large part of American society in entertainment. This directly results in enormous revenues for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the participating colleges which currently fuels the debate of whether college athletes should be compensated beyond their athletic scholarships. College athletes do not deserve any extra payment by any means because they are already receiving large amounts of payment through large scholarships, and

Some may say that paying college athletes is a poor idea considering they have the reputation for being cheaters or only interested in what they want. “...The argument against allowing pay to student athletes arises mainly from greed and self-interest” (Text 1 lines 41-42). Regardless this is not always the case as some students need money and that the greedy ones are actually the coaches. Scholarships can be taken away, forcing students to look for jobs and struggle to find a balance between school

being a college athlete is one of the most hardworking and time-consuming activities. These students are nearly working the same amount of hours as those who are in full-time careers. Today, as the athletics in college grow so do organizations and they receive all of the financial income. One of the biggest debates being argued among schools is if college athletes are receiving the right amount of credit they deserve for their hard work and dedication. The side who oppose paying college athletes argue

30.45 million a year, Peyton Manning makes 18 million dollars a year, the average college athlete makes no money at all. Why do college athletes that put in just as much work get paid differently? This is the way many people feel about NCAA's decision to not pay college athletes. There are always people who think teams should pay their athletes but there are just as many who people who disagree. Paying college athletes continues to be a huge debate in the sports world there are pros and cons for both

When deciding to play a sport in college that sport essentially becomes ones main focus. It is trusted by the school that they are being given their all. Between countless hours of practice and keeping ones grades up it is nearly impossible for a college athlete to get a job. Without a job, some of these athletes have no guaranteed source of income and that makes covering every day needs difficult. That brings the debate to whether college athletes should be paid to play a sport or not. The NCAA

of Paying College Athletes Many people are split on the idea of whether or not college athletes should be payed to play. Student athletes are dedicated to a variety of sports. According to a 2011 lawsuit that dealt with a major university, the average athletic program spends anywhere from five to six hours a day practicing. These athletes are playing sports voluntarily, they are not being hired to. All the time the athletes spend practicing they are doing so by their own free will. College athletes

the question or topic of paying college athletes has been given much debate. Countless studies show that this idea has many negative factors associated with it, which in-return make it unreasonable. The cons associated with the idea of paying college/amateur athletes include that many student-athletes already receive scholarships and other benefits, paying college athletes could detract from the purity of the game, and the process of figuring out how to pay these athletes would be extremely difficult

about eleven billion dollars in revenue for college sports. How much of that money do the athletes get? They get absolutely nothing for making the NCAA money. Which is crazy since they are ones who generate the money and television ratings. College athletes should be compensated for their efforts due to the understanding that their work brings notoriety to the college the athlete is attending, and brings revenue to the college as well; therefore athletes deserve part of these funds. One of the