Thank you for sharing your observation of the current trend of fining student-athletes. As an athletic administrator, who has seen first-hand the efforts made to enhance the student- athletes experience on and off the court (or field), acts such as those considered by Virginia Tech’s football program, nullifies the efforts that have been made. Fining student athletes, who are not paid for serving on a team, is immoral. The implementation of fining in an athletic department could provoke student-athletes to break NCAA rules as it relates to amateurism, to cover the cost of these fines.
Although the leadership of the football coaching staff is disappointing, the leadership of Virginia Tech athletic director, Whit Babcock, should be applauded.
College Varsity Athletes Should be Paid In this paper, I argue that college varsity athletes should be paid for playing sports that bring in revenue. In particular, College football and basketball because they bring in the majority of the revenue for the schools. The revenue accomplished by college sports programs continues to increase, due to the growth in interest of the NCAA basketball tournament and the college football playoffs (Berry III, Page 270). Throughout the past few years, one of the main topics debated in college sports is whether or not the athletes should be paid.
Such as the NCAA for an example, the student-athlete would have to follow the course work requirements and eligibility requirements but, these requirements are different from the high school graduation requirements so they would have to follow those guidelines as well. As student- athletes work on their way of completing the course work required to qualify for NCAA programs it’s important that students check the NCAA requirements often because they requirements change often. The eligibility requirements for the NCAA as of 2013, for Division I, are sixteen courses that have to be completed. Four of these courses have to be English, three courses of Math, two years of Natural or Physical Sciences (including one year of lab science if offered).
Ryan Vanderfords’ article published in the Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal explores this issue of whether or not college athletes should be paid beyond what they receive in scholarships. Vanderford is currently a law associate at a law firm in Los Angeles, California. He played sports throughout high school and college, so the author can relate to this topic. The payment of college athletes has become a more prominent issue in today’s society then it has been in the past. He argues that at major universities, student athletes help the school generate their revenue and therefore should be paid.
Should College Athletes Receive Compensation for Performing? Most people prefer college sports over professional sports simply because the athletes are more driven and have more passion for the game they love. The discussion of whether college athletes should be paid or not, has been ongoing for years now. Some believe compensating amateur athletes would take the enjoyment out of college sports, while others argue that these athletes deserve a paycheck for their tremendous amount of work and efforts on the field and courts. College athletes should not receive compensation to perform because they are students before athletes.
It includes only those funds that end up in the NCAA 's bank account.” The FCAA being the organization that would collect and distribute the capital. This research paper described why college athletes should be paid. They make personal sacrifices, and take risks in order to produce revenue for their schools.
Paying College Athletes This essay I’m going to talk about paying college athletes and why we should pay them a little bit of money. I think we should pay college athletes a little bit of money. I have some facts and reasons why we should to back up reason why we should. Here are my facts and reasons to support my opinion about this topic.
“That’s the ball game!”, the announcer screams as the Villanova Wildcats win the NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship. The players just won the biggest game in college basketball and, while millions have been made in the tournament, all the players receive is the satisfaction of winning and an ego boost. Within days they will back in the classroom. In the world of collegiate sports, the debate about paying student athletes is increasing as the revenue the college earns has increased into millions of dollars. Student-athletes are employees to their athletic programs, but they’re not receiving paychecks for their hours of service or overtime.
College sports is one of the best-known entertainments around the world. But for the athletes, they are students first then athletes second. For college student-athletes, there are a variety of scholarships and grants to help pay for college or college debt. However, some critics say that student-athletes should be paid a salary like pro athletes would, with help from scholarships or grants. The authors of, College Athletes are being Educated, not Exploited, Val Ackerman and Larry Scott, argue that student-athletes are already paid by free education and other necessities.
Should college athletes be paid? Annotated Bibliography Benedykiuck, Mike. “The Blue Line: College athletes should be paid.” Dailyfreepress.
" This quote proves that the students are bringing in lots of money and the school has plenty to give. College athletes should be paid because they contribute to the school revenues. When it comes to getting fans in the arena it all happens because of the stars coming out of the locker room. Student athletes can be looked at as advertisement because they persuade people to come watch their skills.
Amateurism in college athletics is an exploitation of the athletes who participate in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) sports. The amount of work that is done by these athletes to help their respective institutions generate millions of dollars in revenue, goes seemingly unnoticed when identifying the substantial amount of money flow in NCAA sports and the amount of people, from stakeholders to alumni, that benefit from this source. Amateurism, the foundation of NCAA sports, has been in place for over a century of time dating back to the early 1900s. Any athlete who is making money for work they’ve done outside of their institution is not being exploited, however, an athlete can easily be placed on the other end of the spectrum when he or she is withheld from recognizing the true monetary value of their talents and likeness that are being used for the profit of the school or others. The NCAA is understandably satisfied with the continuous growth of its’ revenue each year, yet the problem they face of having people accept that “student-athletes” are just amateurs is growing as well.
College athletes already get their education free why should they get paid for playing a sport they love playing. What do you think, should college athletes get paid for playing the sport there in? Well I don’t think so and in this paper I will tell you and give you reasons why they shouldn’t be paid. College athletes are already getting a free education they shouldn’t be allowed to be paid. My topic is why college athletes shouldn’t get paid.
The argument made by these two professors state that Division 1 players qualify as employees under Federal Labor Laws. Since players are under this law, the McCormick’s feel players should get financially compensated due to the physical rigors and balance education simultaneously (Cooper, 2011). It’s unbelievable how this couple thinks Division 1 athletes should get paid. The privilege to attend a university that is costly on full scholarship should be more than enough. Furthermore, student-athletes received stipends as an allowance assist with their livelihood.
The fight for payment of college athletes has not been quick one as more and more issues keep popping up. The NCAA has never allowed payment of its athletes, but small steps towards the overall goal has questioned the NCAA’s past. Its’ decisions has stayed constant since its founding in 1906. The first issue in this decision would not occur until 1952 when the NCAA ruled to give The University of Kentucky the ‘death penalty’ for paying their athletes. This ‘death penalty’ is a one year program ban from participation, the harshest penalty the NCAA can give.
A growing debate in the National Collegiate Athletic Association is whether or not student athletes should be paid. The controversy began in 2011 after three hundred coaches and athletes signed a petition to pay college-level athletes, and since then other athletes have made several more arguments. The NCAA has rightfully denied all of the requests, saying they include too much. To pay student athletes could be hugely expensive for colleges, especially because they would not only pay for each athlete’s degree and equipment, but also provide a salary and give bonuses revenue for tournaments. Moreover, college athletes should not be paid because there is not enough money, it takes away a student’s focus from schoolwork, and not every athlete is guaranteed a professional career after graduating; however it is argued that it they are already paid in a way.