Furthermore, the decision to start paying the athletes not only would create a even playing field that has typically been swayed toward the universities. Stipends are needed to control how much is allocated, but that itself will be the spark that is needed. This is important because the relationship between the NCAA and their athletes are like any other employer its employee; employer should pay the employee what they are worth, not just what they feel is equal. The NCAA has duplicated the structure that held many people down in the 1800’s - slavery. They earn the massive income as the laborers (athlete) settle for pennies.
College sports are called amateurs, but the schools and the NCAA make millions of dollars a year off the performance of its players. Athletic coaches are allowed to make millions of dollars off the success of their programs. Some coaches make more money than their state representatives all the will their players are only guaranteed a scholarship they can revoked at any time for a various of reason’s. Business across the nation would like to be doing what the NCAA and universities are doing with their student athletes. Nowhere else in America are you going to find that a multi-million-dollar business that gets revenue off its employees that have signed contracts but not pay them.
Yes they are given scholarships, yes they are given an opportunity to change their situation and their future. But, if put the numbers into perspective you see that they are only getting a fraction of what they deserve. They are grossly under compensated in comparison to the billions the NCAA brings in using their likeness every year. The athletes need to be paid for playing for universities. After all it is their choice to go there.
Rheenen states 90% of revenue generating athletes are African-Americans (2012, 559) p. More specifically poor black athletes. In 1985 Harry Edwards called African-Americans the “backbone” of revenue producing collegiate sports (p. 10). The NCAA takes advantage of these kids because they are the easiest to abuse. Universities offers a scholarship and pay for them to go to college for free or a reduced fee. Without these scholarships many student-athletes would not be able to go to college.
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.
The NCAA says that they don’t want to pay college athletes because of their scholarships. As the money keeps flowing more and more each and every year, it comes with more arguments about the athletes getting the money that they deserve. Sounds as if college athletes are blindly signing a sheet of paper and the NCAA has an evil smirk saying “You have no idea what you’ve gotten yourself into”. A court case had also gone down about a young college athlete and a car dealership. The dealership was using the athletes to make more sales with his cars and was doing behind the athletes back without
What do people go to games for, the actual players or the coaches? In hopes that the answer is the players, the question that arises is why do the coaches get paid so much while the players get paid, nothing: “At the University of Alabama, the head football coach, Nick Saban, recently signed a contract paying him $7 million per year - more than 160 tunes the average wage of a Tuscaloosa public school teacher” (Edelman). The simple fact that coaches get paid that much per year is outrageous because they’re not the ones who are out on the court or the field making those plays that make it possible for them to get paid. No, the player’s should not get paid a significant difference compared to the coaches but they should indeed get paid considering they are the ones making all the plays afterall.
In other words, they are saying that parents are spending a lot of money for their kids to play competitive sports when they only have a small chance of playing it at a professional level. Therefore, they wasted all their money for their kids to play a sport, when only about two percent of high school athletes win sports scholarships at NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) colleges. That is how the cost of competitive sports is harmful to
Have you ever thought about how those hardworking college athletes get through their years attending their University? Well, what if I told you that those athletes can barely get the essentials needed day by day because the scholarships they have received do not cover it and they don 't have any other money to buy it themselves. The debate whether or not College athletes should be paid for their time at the university they attend has been talked about a lot in these past years.Some people think that they should not be paid, but today I’m going to be telling you about why they should be paid. Athletes that are very well known by the fans of the university and or with lots of other people around the world like Lonzo Ball of UCLA, Dillon Brooks of Oregon, Markelle Fultz of Washington, etc. draw in a big crowd which also brings in more money that people pay to watch.
In conclusion, college athletes should be paid because they bring in a ton of revenue for their schools while risking injury and yet are unable to afford the cost of living. The time that is put into the sport is the equivalent, if not more, than the time that is put into a full time job. Only thirty-three percent of students receive scholarships, most of them partial. Also, only one percent of all college athletes will play professional sports after their college tenure is served. The NCAA and Division One Colleges generate profits that do not trickle down to the athletes.
For example, most colleges/University 's athletes walk the campuses in free and new Nike, Under Armour, and Adidas all free (Chaudacoff page 2). In this situation, this is a reason why they shouldn’t because they get all this free stuff. Finally, not all athletes compete in big divisions. Obviously, some athletes compete in divisions/conferences that make very little or no money for their schools (Paying college athletes). In fact, if schools don’t make as much as other schools, how would they pay them?
One argument against the payment of college athletes are the scholarships they receive. “The notion that a full scholarship is not a fair exchange for athletic services provided to a university—regardless of how much money an athletic department generates from those services—is ridiculous” (Whitlock). College is very expensive to attend, and with so many students going into thousands of dollars of debt, it is a privilege that some athletes are lucky to receive. Whitlock also argues that the money the athletes will receive from the schools will go towards the purchase of drugs and alcohol, and other unnecessary things. After researching this topic, my opinion is that college athletes should be paid.
Why Collegiate Athletes Should Not Be Paid Annually the NCAA as a whole brings in approximately six billion dollars, yet the people generating the income are not making a dime? In the United States collegiate sporting events are a massive industry but the players do not receive an income because they are technically amateurs. Is it time to start paying college athletes? Or should players continue to be rewarded in free education? 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.
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.
Over recent years a question that has been of popular discussion is, should college athletes get paid? Throughout the past few decades college sports have become as popular as professional sports in America. As of right now college athletes do not get paid although many people believe that they should. The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) brings in an average of six billion dollars annually, which is because of the athletes so why should they not get paid? College athletes promote the school they attend by playing, and with all the money they bring to the school there is no reason they should not get some type of compensation.