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.
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. As the athletes receiving scholarships have a full ride through college their payment is in the form of education benefits as opposed to direct compensation.
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.
Should the NCAA Pay College Athletes? College athletes spend just as much, or more time at practice, games, and traveling, as they do in the classrooms studying. This issue is very common in the NCAA. There 's been former players suing the NCAA for not getting payed. They’ve been put on video games, clothes, and on magazines, but they don’t get a penny for it.
Although, I no longer play sports the debate of college athletes and whether they should be paid or not still interests me. As a lot of people from Neuqua play sports, many of them should be concerned about the argument, because this could affect them in the future. When deciding what college to sign with, one factor is the amount of scholarship money that they are going to receive. College’s spend much more on athletes scholarships compared to academic scholarships that they give out.
An associated press article, “Paying college athletes fits modern reality”, explained that some students come from poor families. Why not let them earn some extra bucks? It states, “They might be sufficient for students with academic scholarships, who can supplement their income by working after class. 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.
One reason the opposition side of this argument argues that minority scholarships are fair is because, the scholarships are not always distributed by college institutions. Countless organizations, corporations, associations, and minority advocacy groups will offer scholarships to minorities (Minority Scholarships). These groups have every right to give out their money to whoever they would like, but that is not what the debate in this paper is about. The argument is against college institutions giving out the low requirement minority scholarships. If students can get different groups to give them money for school, that is nobody 's business but themselves.
The rule in college is players”may not accept gifts or money from sports agents, booster clubs, alumni , or companies to make life easier. ”(DOL 105) Playing in college is just like playing in the pros. The money college schools make from game tickets, tv broadcasting, and food concessions at their games is almost more than some pro games. They deserve the money because people are coming to watch them, not the team owners or the coach or the NCAA board.
College sports is one of the best-known entertainments around the world. But for the athletes, they are students first then athletes second. For college student-athletes, there are a variety of scholarships and grants to help pay for college or college debt. However, some critics say that student-athletes should be paid a salary like pro athletes would, with help from scholarships or grants. The authors of, College Athletes are being Educated, not Exploited, Val Ackerman and Larry Scott, argue that student-athletes are already paid by free education and other necessities.
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.
College sports collect millions of dollars each year:Approximately around 40 million dollars a year, states and universities make. You would think that the amount of money that is made would get split between the franchises ,students and schools but unfortunately the students that play receive none of it. Theres many discussions on if college athletes should or should not get paid and because they already receive scholarships then they shouldn 't get paid. Scholarships in itself is “around 25,000-30,000 per year for example a student who 's division 1 thats over 100,000 for 4 years of college(Hartnett 1)”. So if college athletes would start getting paid then they shouldn 't get any scholarships and they would just have to pay for it with the money they are receiving.
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.
When student-athletes received full scholarships, they should be privileged and thankful since the cost of higher education is very expensive. Student-athletes need to understand the circumstances and take of advantage of getting their degree from a well renowned university since the percentages are very slim to none on having a professional career in sports. The purpose of a student-athlete is to be a student first and then an athlete second. The main focus should be on earning a degree, and not worrying about when is the next game on the schedule. Many people are stating that college athletes should get paid, but how about the general student body that has little to nothing and working a job earning minimal pay.
In 2015 10.5 million people viewed the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament, and if these player went on strike all these views and the revenue that surrounds the tournament would stop. College athletes should not be paid because the main purpose of college is for school, athletes receive enough from their scholarships, and if college athletes unionize they can get whatever pay they want Many schools are fueled by their sports and outstanding athletes that play them, but the main purpose of college is not to play sports. Lots of Division One schools are all about sporting programs because f the money that the programs bring in. Without these sporting events some schools probably would not survive.