How much does a professional athlete differ from a college athlete? Is there really any major difference between the two? This discussion has been going on for years, and every time the topic comes up the NCAA reject the idea. The number one response is that athletes get an education for free. Is that really fair? More than a third of the athletes that get a full ride education are going pro. Athletes put all their time and effort into their sports. So athletes have less time to spend on their education. Another aspect to look at is their health and well-being. Being in sports is not the safest thing to do, especially in a D1 program. Even the slightest mistake can end an athletes ' career. Athletes are pushed to the limit every single day,
Scholarships granted to student athletes cover tuition, fees, room, board and textbooks, according to the National Collegiate Athletic Association website. Some athletes receive scholarships that cover only a portion of these expenses, but many of these student athletes still receive more aid than the average ordinary student. Many student athletes have most everything provided for them in college, giving them a clear advantage over their fellow non sport playing students. For non-athlete students, the experiences of an unpaid internship does not come along with a full-ride scholarship unlike playing a sport and competing doing what they love. ”These athletes are receiving a college education in return for their skills in sports" (Horace 1). In a way, college athletes are already getting paid. Universities should not have to hand out more money to their athletes just to satisfy them. It would be unfair to other non-athlete students if college athletes were to receive payment for play and give athletic scholarships. Non-athlete students don’t get paid to do their school work. These kids are college athletes, they are not professional athletes so they should not be paid to play. These students should be focusing on their school work and their sport that they play. If these athletes were to get paid, they may focus more on the sport than the actual education they are being
Well the truth is that, the athletes don’t see their fair share even if they’re one of the best players on the team. Many believe that scholarships cover the fact that college athletes don’t get paid.
One style of scholarship that colleges can give their athletes is a full-ride. Schools do not need to pay their athletes more than the cost of attendance, which is why some colleges give full-rides to some athletes (Roberts). There are also many other scholarships that colleges award their athletes. Among these other scholarships is the basic athletic scholarship, which many colleges are quite ‘open-handed’ with (Lewis 22). In case the above forms of payments aren’t enough for all college athletes, there are other options if athletes show the need for more money. The NCAA is willing to provide extra money to “Pell Grant recipients” for personal items and travel home in case of emergencies (Gerdy 8).
The debate over whether or not student-athletes should receive money has been a hot topic recently. College athletes should benefit monetarily for their efforts because of the serious risks involved, the time the athletes put into it, and if the college is making money off these students they should financially benefit from it. Playing college sports is a dream for some kids, but many do not fully comprehend the issues involved in college sports.
Here are the pros of paying college athletes; from the text; “Big time college football and basketball programs generate billions of dollars a year in TV and marketing contracts, ticket sales, and merchandising.” So, the athletes should be paid because the programs fabricate brobdingnagian amounts of money and they do not even pay the people who are actually the crux of the money making process.From the text; “There’s an issue of fairness,” and “The question that’s being raised here is . . . whatever the amature label is simply a cover for exploitation”. Both of those quotes are from someone named Risa Lieberwitz, a professor of labor and employment. These are pros because it shows how the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) are exploited in fairness. It also shows Brobdingnagian inequitable they are, about how copious money they fabricate and do not pay the main reason they receive money.Those are the Pros
Statistically showing, at least 100,000 college football players get hurt yearly. College football player’s should get paid to play because these players put themselves at risk for injury, college football is a job, not p.e, and it will help players adjust to college socially and economically. Colleges and the NCAA can make money selling jerseys and other souvenirs that might include the likeness of players, yet the actual players never receive a cent.
The reasoning for the objections can include that “they are just amateurs,” and that they “should be grateful to receive a free education.” For the people who say that they are amateurs, college athletics is just as big of a business as professional sports are, but the difference is that all of the money in college sports go to the athletic directors, coaches, commissioners, and NCAA instead of going to the players. Also, they spend roughly forty hours a week playing, practicing, and training for their sport, which is almost as much as a typical job. That means that their Division I sport is technically their job, so shouldn’t they be compensated for it? Regarding the argument that student athletes should be grateful they receive a free education, this “free education” is only free for so many people. Most athletes are not on full scholarship, which means that they do not get their education 100% for free. Even if some athletes do get any level of scholarship, it is only free for so long. If an athlete does not perform at a high level or if they get hurt, they can easily have that scholarship taken away, and they are left with nothing. These student athletes are supposedly “amateurs” and blessed with “free education,” but in reality, this is not the case.
Would you want to do college sports but still have all of your college work to do without getting payed? Most people in college are very focused on school and getting a job to pay for college. School sports could get in the way, if they could be working or studying when their going to practice. College students need to be able to pay for college but still be able to provide food and other hygiene for themselves. College athletes are usually already really focused on their sports and should get a reward to help them out with school. College athletes need to be able to have a good paying job but if they're to busy with sports they might have to give something up. They shouldn't have to give up something they love after working so hard towards it.
This notion is supported by Dr. Daniel Gould, who believes that “Children who participate in sports have increased educational aspirations, closer ties to school and increased occupational aspirations in youth” (1). People against the funding of high school sports think that parents and society are placing more emphasis than ever before and, “[P]ressures athletic personnel to deviate on winning from the athlete- centered educational and personal development mission” (Gould 1). However, athletes strive to do better in class. Michael Lorenc, a high school basketball coach believes that “those who seem to have an overwhelming schedule where they’re playing maybe multiple sports, and high academic schedules, they tend to do better than those who don’t do anything extracurricularly” (Gray). Balancing sports and school makes athletes put more effort into keeping up grades while playing the sport they love. Sports motivate athletes to be better students, so funding sports would just keep kids inspired to do good at school, not cause them to get
The turf is lit up by the blazing sun. A crowd of parents and family fill the bleachers with cheers in their mouths. The play starts. All the players form a perfect positioning and hand off the ball. Going going gone. A boy cheers with a childish grin on his face. He falls over in joy. Youth sports is a hot topic in today’s world. With so many kids participating it was bound to become something of discussing. Should kids play competitive sports? While some parents believe that the competition can harm kids, I believe that sports can greatly help kids. Making them experience healthy competition and become more well rounded contributing members of society.
The Sport is a devastating road to heartbreak and failure. (I suggest, To experience sports, you have to experience heartbreak and failure - sounds a bit awkward to say “the sport”).
Michael Jordan, the best to ever play the game of basketball, earned an athletic scholarship because of his amazing talents. Athletic scholarships are used to give athletes the best opportunity athletically while receiving a reduction in tuition or free tuition. “The history of athletic scholarships goes back to the start of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in 1906” (Kibilko). There are major differences between each division of the NCAA; division one, division two, and division three. Lastly, is the other associations for student athletes such as Junior or Community Colleges and The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA).
Nearly all Americans love sports but is it really worth it. In this generation, competitive sports has become more dangerous than ever sports experts are starting to worry that competitive sports has a more negative effect than a positive effect on children. Most competitive sports can lead to severe injuries, pressure which can lead the youth using illegal drugs, and all the money parents spend on their kids to play sports is ridiculous, and worst of all most children are starting to burn out of sports emotionally and physically.Competitive sports do not have a positive effect on all children because of the cost, pressure/injury, and enjoyment.