Athletes often can’t.” This shows that students who come from poor families can’t work after classes even if they wanted to because of practice. The article, “Should College Athletes Be Paid to Play?” also states that, “Some Division I athletes came from
“But the players or athletes who are good and entertain us those are the ones who will get paid”-source B. “When you go to college you go for a degree not a paycheck”-source B. So if students apply to be college athletes why do they have to pay them. Especially when they free education,free food,and free books. Now if they want to get paid they should practice a lot so they can get really good and make it to the NFL or another league.
Paying college athletes is a controversial topic. College athletes are normally towards getting paid. The rest of the collegiate body has split opinions. One opinion is that college athletes shouldn’t be paid. Some people believe this because college athletes aren’t employees, sports programs do not have the money to spare, and there are already scholarships given to athletes.
Many believe it is absurd to still consider the NCAA amateur sports after all it has become but just as many think the exact opposite and that college athletes already receive fair compensation for their participation. This is a big decision that could impact the lives of thousands nationwide and revolutionize sports as we know it. College athletes should not be paid because of the many benefits that come with being a student athlete and because it is not a realistic resolution. One reason college athletes should not be paid is because of the many benefits there already are to playing a collegiate sport. One being reduced or free admission also known as a scholarship.
Many believe that college athletes are similar to professional athletes and that they deserve to be paid for what they do. However, many college athletes are able to receive many other benefits, therefore additional compensation is not necessary. College athletes go to school to play their sport, but also go to get an education. Their main role is to prepare themselves for later in life, and being paid would take away if they were being paid. Student athletes are not professional athletes or entertainers, and should not be paid for playing on a college team.
Simply put, football teaches valuable lessons for life. Although, there are valid safety concerns, these should not keep kids from learning these instructions. Many activities have some sort of harm associated with it, but people will still participate in them anyway because of something that they gain from it. Football has much to offer young boys who will be entering the workforce in the years to come. If the average man possessed character, understood comradery, and exercised commitment; the world would be a better place.
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.
Do you think college athletes should be paid? This controversy is debated in Opposing Viewpoints: Sports and Athletes. Al Woods titles his argument College Athletes Should Be Paid because the schools are making money off the players, some athletes are being paid under the table, and athletes are giving up on education. However, Krikor Meshefejian titles his argument College Students Should Not Be Paid because students receive scholarships, the payment system is “problematic”, and the experience is payment enough(98-99.) Meshefejian has the better argument that students should not be paid.
Recorded within an interview, Fitzgerald stated that he wants to be sure he is always setting a good example for the younger generation. Fitzgerald also stated that there is more to life than just playing sports, that being a good citizen and give back to people less fortunate is more important than any sport (Kraft). These simple acts and statements rub off on those who follow college football, and present them with the chance to better themselves. Student athletes can also influence their environment by proving to other students that they are still involved and focused in their studies despite the common belief. Athletes can do this by always showing up for class, joining study groups, and/or raising their G.P.A.
Cutting sports in college is always a difficult decision for any college to make. College sports are extremely popular and are incredibly vital to some colleges. Intercollegiate sports help the college recruit new students and for funding. Some colleges though cannot afford to keep the programs, and eventually end up cutting the program completely. Community colleges are faced with dilemma in which to either to have or not to have an intercollegiate sport programs.
A prominent issue in today’s society is the question of whether or not student athletes should be paid. Many people today are pushing toward payment for these student athletes, who are required to fill the roles of being both a full time student and athlete. Those who are against the payment of student athletes believe that pay could distort their ideals, diminish their passion for the game, and be detrimental for their general well-being. There is a fear that paying student athletes would make the difference between college athletics and professional sports undistinguishable. Many athletes might miss out on valuable and important lessons learned while being a student athlete if they are constantly faced with the pressure to generate money
The NCAA is one of the biggest organizations and one of the most polemical arguments in the college sports world is whether student athletes should be paid or not beyond a scholarship. Student athletes are being exploited for their hard work and dedication to the sport. Universities give the illusion that they are providing fair compensation with an athletic scholarship however, they profit off of the student athletes. The NCAA states that student athletes should not be paid because they are amateurs compared to professionals and prohibits them from receiving any money from anything other than a part time job. College athletes deserve a perquisite beyond a scholarship; the NCAA is taking the time from college athletes, profiting way more
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.
This is because the players are the main aspect of college sports so without them the school would be losing money. “The NCAA, in particular, was an enormously complex and decentralized body and was not under the direct governing authority of presidents. Second, the principle of academic integrity aimed to prevent the widespread exploitation of student-athletes(Hearn)”. The NCAA was formed to fight the problem that could happen which is players going on strike. This could still happen if players feel that they have been mistreated, which is why players should not be allowed to unionize.