And most of them work hard in practice and play great in the game. Colleges should help their athletes by paying them. College athletes should be paid. Some athletes go to the pros before graduating college. Paying the athletes will make them work harder in practice and in school, because if they work harder in practice they will play harder and maybe get paid more.
Colleges willing to pay for their players could attract talented athletes. Students may want to go out for a sport if they know they will be paid, which could also bring talent to the field or court. With new talent, teams could win more and earn more recognition. This would benefit the players, coach and
NCAA athletes took the NCAA to court. Ed O’Bannon, a former NCAA athlete, led the charge for the student athletes. O’Bannon argued that the athletes are being taken advantage of because the schools make millions off of the players’ likeness, meaning the schools make money on selling a jersey, or bobble head of the players and the players deserve some of that money and it should be put into a trust fund for the player. Judge Claudia Wilkin decided the O’Bannon case and gave the athletes everything they wanted in 2014, but in a court of repeals the ruling was reversed and the college just had to pay for the full cost of attendance at the university and did not have to pay for the trust of each athlete (Nocera). This was a small step for college
Are they students or employees? They spend more time with the sport than in school. Student athletes should be acknowledged for their performances. College athletes should be paid to play because they bring money into the school, advertisement, and they perform the same tasks of pros. College kids bring in thousands of dollars every game day.
College Athletes Should be Paid Working all day every week and never being paid is a nightmare to all. Who would appreciate breaking their backs and never reaping the reward for their hard work? Well college athletes do this day in and day out. Starting around their sophomore year in high school students start the long recruiting process, so that they will be on the scene when their senior year rolls around.
However, some people think college athletes should not be paid for many reasons such as, college athletes already receive numerous benefits. Many get scholarships, which help pay for their tuition, books ,dorms, and sporting equipment. According to the NCAA, college athletes often receive grants worth up to 100,000 dollars. They are the first choice for professional leagues, which draft college athletes at a higher rate than overseas or minor leagues. Also they might argue, college athletes should be considered students first, because by receiving direct payment, they would basically be employees or professionals rather than students.
My first view point I want to illustrate is paying college athletes can affect their overall performance. I mean think about it what is any college athletes dream? Their dream is to make it to the big leagues and get paid therefore they put their best into every game they paly hoping to get noticed by some big time scouter. If you start paying them there is no point to try to make it to the big leagues, because you are already getting paid. Also payment can take away their motivation to put 110% into every game that they play which means they will not be as big of factor on the team.
If the NCAA can earn millions of dollars from student athletes, shouldn’t athletes retain their fair share? NCAA Student Athletes deserve to be paid because their hard work and time is the driving force behind the profit and popularity of the NCAA. All of the ticket and merchandise sales, television revenue, promotions, and other sources of income go to the NCAA, the schools, the coaches, the event staff, and others involved – except for the athletes creating the value of the NCAA. The NCAA finished the 2014 campaign with just under $1 Billion in revenue, which is more than the NHL and NBA.
In any controversial topic there will be two sides to an argument. The opposing side in any argument will fire back with good points I’m sure, these are the big arguments individuals on the affirmative side of should College Athletes be paid like employees. First: Student Athletes bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to the school so they should get a cut or a paycheck out of it. Our Response: There is no doubt big college sport teams bring in the money for their respective schools, as they should considering how much facilities for sport programs cost.
Just imagine being a student athlete. For many college athletes a pursuit in athletics will provide for their family, if needed, and gives them many other luxuries. Being an athlete is hard enough,imagine being a student athlete it is literally a full time job. By paying college athletes they will receive a reward for being excellent students and athletes. To accomplish this goal colleges will have agreed to certain terms and conditions.
Since it’s founding over a century ago, the NCAA has developed from a minute form of extra-curricular involvement offered to students, to a dominant entertainment industry nationwide. The growing success of this program has promoted a genuinely competitive nature, deteriorating the previous category of “amateurism”. Being that it has become such a popular program, the demand for student-athlete dedication has become exuberant. The development has established sports as the central focus for student-athletes as practices and competitions amount to 40+ hour workweeks for them. Such a heavy involvement in addition to school prevents the student-athletes from being able to work, leaving them unable to form an income to afford living expenses that scholarships cannot cover.
College athletes should get payed to play for their university. These athletes are basically being used, because the school makes money from them playing. The average college receives around 95 million dollars per season. During the season athletes do not have time to get a job, and they gotta pay for stuff somehow. If each athlete got $2,000 paid over the course of the semester, this would give them some spending cash and an opportunity to start managing their money.
Should college athletes be paid? I selected this article because I honestly thought they did get paid and I wanted to read more on the topic. In this essay we will discuss the pros and cons of college athletes getting paid. I am on the pro side of this debate. Here is why.
They think because an athlete has a scholarship that their food and living expenses are covered. Scholarships will cover the cost of tuition and books but will not cover anything else. Some scholarships will only cover a small amount of a student’s tuition so that the student will have to take out student loans to be able to attend college. There are some athletes that could possible still be paying off their student loans fifteen to twenty years after graduating from college. In Rich Hofmann’s newspaper article, “Jim Delany, the commissioner of the big ten, talked about wanting to consider the possibility of paying scholarship athletes a stipend of somewhere between $2,000 and $5,000 to cover the full cost of attending college”, but nothing was ever set into place.
Athletes in college should not only be given a scholarship, but also a salary in their involvement in sports. Countless athletes have scholarships for their sports. Often enough, they don’t gain a good education from it. Since college athletes are offered a scholarship for their athletic performance, “then college athletes should receive the full benefit of their bargain-a worthwhile undergraduate education” (Brown 11). Athletes are usually traveling with their team, competing against other colleges.