The film “Schooled” makes many arguments to support the claim that the NCAA is taking advantage of college athletes. One way the NCAA has the ability to control these athletes is by giving these student athletes the title of amateurs. This title of amateur says that the athletes will be playing for the love of the game and not for money. This also means that the athletes will be offered something priceless in exchange for their playing abilities, which is a free education. During this time as an athlete these students are not able to persue any other kind of income since all of their time is taken up by participating in their sport and followed by school. Many of the athletes who were interviewed during the movie said there was barely any time for homework or studying since there was such a focus on athletics. These athletes also spoke about their inability to have seek other funds. Adriane Foster who played football for the University of Tennessee recalled a time where he had just played in a huge game and went back to his dorm where he and his teammates were starving since they had no money to buy any food. After calling his coach to tell him they were starving, the coach bought his players tacos, which is technically an NCAA violation. The next day the coach came to …show more content…
The film described how there is no D league or farm program for the NFL. For those aspiring NFL players, playing football in college and being an amateur by NCAA terms in the only path one can take to reach the professional league. This prevents athletes from speaking about any injustices because their coaches control their scholarship and it must be renewed each year. The coach has the ability to pull that scholarship if a player is not preforming or following NCAA standards. For a shot at the pros and a free education athletes must follow the amateur code enforced by the
That was his mother’s entire annual paycheck! The scholarship suddenly seemed like it would be a drop in a basin of debt. Unfortunately, this situation is similar to that of many college athletes,over eighty six percent of who are poverty-stricken, coming from low-income families, and almost all of them are bombarded with high fees. Though they are in dire need of help, the NCAA, otherwise known as the National Collegiate Athletic Association, refuses to aid these athletes, saying that the players should not receive salaries or any other monetary compensation.
Football also helped a player called “Money” achieve his dream of attending college. Money was the smartest boy on the team, however he had a very small stature compared to the other players. The film made it very clear that Money was working really hard in school in hopes to get a scholarship onto a college team because his family did not have enough money to
To the contrary, one could more persuasively argue that an athlete is exploited when he is expressly disallowed from realizing his value while his reputation and skill are being used to realize a profit for others. - Jay Bilas (2010), former Duke and pro basketball player, current ESPN and CBS sports analyst According to the NCAA, its version of amateurism is all that is needed to prevent the commercial exploitation of college athletes. The protectionist rationale for its concept of amateurism that has served as the foundation for the NCAA’s position on issues related to revenue-generating player compensation is imbedded in the notion that the NCAA is attempting to, in their words, “maintain a clear line of demarcation between collegiate athletics and professional sports” so as to prevent the undue exploitation of college athletes (NCAA Amateur and Membership Staff, 2010, p. 1). Note the linguistic nuance, as if simply labeling “collegiate athletics” as being distinctive from “professional sports” would be a sufficient barricade to the commercial interests that now include, in modest estimation, a 14 year, $10.8 billion contract to broadcast NCAA Division I men’s college basketball annually with CBS and Turner Sports (Schlabach, 2011); a 15-year
Should NCAA Football Players get Paid? Did you know that 85% of NCAA football players live below the poverty line? This is just one of the many problems about student athletes in the NCAA. College football players should be paid because they simply do not have enough time for a job between college and sports and these student athletes sacrifice their bodies for the love of the game.
Should College Football Players Get Paid? Do you believe college football players should get paid? I don’t. College football players should not get paid for two reasons, most of them are on some type of scholarship whether it be a full ride or even a half scholarship and they are not professional athletes.
Athletes don’t realize what they actually do to deserve the honor of being on the team and getting free tuition as a part of the
Sports and school take up almost all of their free time. The extra time they have is used for things like sports conditioning at a gym or studying. “The typical Division I college football player
As we all know, college can be very expensive. With the scholarships and grants, college student-athletes can go to school for free and get their day-to-day needs such as food, housing, clothes, etc. Ackerman and Scotts, purpose is to show that college is a learning experience and with the help of college sports, the student-athletes will have a chance to grow and be successful in life rather than being exploited. However, critics believe that college student-athletes should be paid salary, like professional athletes, because they want people to see the “athletes are the rule, not the expectation” (par 11). They want the audience to think that it’s a rule for student-athletes to go play pro after two years, will no expectation.
“Nine football coaches will be paid at least $1,000,000 in overall compensation in 2000....” College players should get paid because they have a chance to help out their families while they are in college. Athletes should at least get paid just like coaches but not as much as coaches. It wouldn’t be fair for college athletes to not get paid because if they get paid it gets them ready for the pro’s. The athletes should at least have a chance to have just a little fun.
"Over the last decade, the debate of whether or not college athletes should be paid has intensified, and many athletes, as well as coaches, have begun to advocate for the cause." (TIMES) Tyler Harnett, a writer at the Huffington Post, took his standpoint on the topic in the article "Why College Athletes Should be Paid," which clearly states his claim, college athletes should be paid. Personally, I disagree with Harnett's viewpoint and I don't believe college athletes should be paid due to education, funding, and overall fairness. To summarize Harnett's article, he starts by talking about his opponents and their viewpoints on the situation, "They are already getting a scholarship, don't be greedy."
Educate Do Not Compensate In an article by Jim Delany and Andrea Williams it states “College sports is one of the of the biggest things going on in March”. Although some people think that college athletes should get paid for all the work they put into the sport for the school on their jersey. It is a big discussion since they are not pro-athletes and that only professionals should get paid. This may be a problem because of the schools tuition and not all schools would be able to pay the athletes.
Mike says”Students all over the world work hard at the sport that true love and don’t get a lot in return for it”. While college athletes may not exactly be employees, they are more than just students. Consider the life of a student-athlete, though. The average Division I football player dedicates over 43hours per week to his sport, meaning that he spends more than a typical American work-week training and playing football, in addition to his class work. Their work, which generates exorbitant amounts of money year in and year out, deserves Compensation.
“Cristiano Ronaldo makes $56 million a year, Kobe Bryant made $250 million a year and Barack Obama made $400,000 a year during his presidency...” (O'Connor ). Professional athletes are paid millions of dollars to play a game while police officers, firefighters, army soldiers, and even the president are paid significantly less. “It’s not shocking that public servants like teachers and police officers make less than professional athletes”(Figueroa). Compensation shouldn't be about entertainment, it should be about job importance because people are trying to make the world a better and safer place not a more entertaining place.
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.