"There are hungry nights that I go to bed starving." says Shabazz Napier, a champion basketball player for the University of Connecticut. "There 's hungry nights and I 'm not able to eat and I still got to play up to my capabilities" ("Fox Sports"). Many student athletes share Napier 's struggle. Chris Conley, a football player for the University of Georgia, attests that if he needs clothes or shoes, he has to sacrifice his food money and face going hungry (Aued). One would think that given these unacceptable yet commonplace problems, the universities simply couldn 't afford to help their players obtain basic needs, right? Wrong. In 2013, The University of Georgia had nearly 100 million dollars in revenue, 73.9 million dollars in uncommitted …show more content…
Sports reporter, Kate Murphy, succinctly summarizes an overwhelming standpoint that many people seem to cite in her article "Privilege, not a job: College athletes shouldn 't be paid." First, she stipulates herself that student-athletes technically fit the criteria of hardworking employees. She also acknowledges that it is nearly impossible for athletes to balance a job while adhering to their strict schedules. However, because student-athletes are "living the dream" and are supposed to drink up the passion and sacrifices of their game, seeking compensation is grotesque and un-sportsman like. This argument rides on the coattails of "purity." Because money corrupts, student-athletes shouldn 't expect it or want it and should simply play their game out of love...whilst providing entertainment to the masses and technically earning millions of dollars for TV networks, colleges and the NCAA. While one could argue overly the ludicrous and truly unethical contradictions of the argument "play for free, play for purity," that would dignify the belief that student pensions are the only answer to the current system; which is not true. There are countless flaws with the current system and just as many solutions, only one of which involves universities handing out a biweekly check to their …show more content…
If the NCAA was changed, or even abolished, the universities of today would most likely fix the issue of poor college athletes, whether they meant to or not. Universities are typically unabashed to admit that they are indeed running a businesses. They want elite teams that will not only earn the school a large income, but bring them to bowl games and championships. Colleges would have little to no issue with giving student-athletes the benefits of employees if the realm of collegiate sports became a free market. In fact, such a reform guarantees a competitive market to insure that college-players
After researching this topic, my opinion is that college athletes should be paid. The NCAA makes millions of dollars every year, while some athletes can’t put food on the table. Athletes need to be paid for their services like they are working a job, and should be paid by the hour. If the NCAA paid every one of its athletes 200 dollars a week, it would still be a fraction of its revenue. A union must be formed by the athletes for equal pay across the sports, and unfair restrictions set upon athletes and not other students should be
If colleges began to pay their athletes, then they could build a bad reputation for being mercenary and lose their educational reputation If they are allowed to play, then it can be financially detrimental to the college because there are many flaws in the system. College athletes should not be compensated for their actions regarding athletic activities, no matter what sport or level they compete on. The idea that college athletes should or shouldn 't be paid
" This quote proves that the students are bringing in lots of money and the school has plenty to give. College athletes should be paid because they contribute to the school revenues. When it comes to getting fans in the arena it all happens because of the stars coming out of the locker room. Student athletes can be looked at as advertisement because they persuade people to come watch their skills.
College athletes take many risks and make personal sacrifices in order to bring in revenue for their school, for this reason, they should be paid employees. The first reason in why college athletes should be paid is that college athletes take many risks. Depending on the scholarship, if an athlete is injured and unable to play they can lose their
One of the biggest issues with NCAA sports is should college athletes be able to unionize and play. According to their website, The NCAA is an organization that represents over 1,100 colleges and universities from the Division 1, Division 2, and Division 3 Level (ncaa.org). In addition, The NCAA doled out more than $2.7 billion in athletic scholarships along with other resources, student-athletes can utilize (ncaa.org). Although the NCAA generates mass revenue, only the top programs are usually profitable while most schools operate at the institution cost (Mitchell & Edelman, 2013). I believe college athletes should not be unionized or paid to play college sports.
A growing debate in the National Collegiate Athletic Association is whether or not student athletes should be paid. The controversy began in 2011 after three hundred coaches and athletes signed a petition to pay college-level athletes, and since then other athletes have made several more arguments. The NCAA has rightfully denied all of the requests, saying they include too much. To pay student athletes could be hugely expensive for colleges, especially because they would not only pay for each athlete’s degree and equipment, but also provide a salary and give bonuses revenue for tournaments. Moreover, college athletes should not be paid because there is not enough money, it takes away a student’s focus from schoolwork, and not every athlete is guaranteed a professional career after graduating; however it is argued that it they are already paid in a way.
For example, if it wasn’t for basketball players, Gonzaga University would need to spend a lot more money on building a name recognition to students not located on the West. Everyone has their own opinion, but mine is that college athletes should be paid. The amount of time they put into their sport, the amount of money everyone else is making off of them, and their overall importance to the school are only three of a myriad of reasons why they should be paid. These athletes are not only students, but employees to their universities. They are a core member of many university’s marketing team.
In the 2013-14 seasons, the NBA grossed $4.79 billion in revenues. That’s over 100 times more than an average NBA player makes in his whole career. NCAA men’s basketball tournament accumulated $1.15 billion in ad revenue, $200 million more than the NBA Playoffs that same year. Despite the staggering profit numbers they generated, tournament participants did not receive one cent for their efforts. The NCAA currently resides in a state of pure hypocrisy.
College athletes deserve to be paid because they are the only ones not being paid in the college sports industry. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) generates eleven billion dollars annually, some of which could, and should go to college athletes. “USA Today reported last year just how much money the top 10 coaches in college football made. Nick Saban from Alabama topped the list earning roughly $5.5 million in 2013 alone” (Seibold). The coaches are making millions of dollars and the players aren’t.
"Over the last decade, the debate of whether or not college athletes should be paid has intensified, and many athletes, as well as coaches, have begun to advocate for the cause." (TIMES) Tyler Harnett, a writer at the Huffington Post, took his standpoint on the topic in the article "Why College Athletes Should be Paid," which clearly states his claim, college athletes should be paid. Personally, I disagree with Harnett's viewpoint and I don't believe college athletes should be paid due to education, funding, and overall fairness. To summarize Harnett's article, he starts by talking about his opponents and their viewpoints on the situation, "They are already getting a scholarship, don't be greedy."
Athletes who get scholarships don’t have to deal or worry about student loans, paying for textbooks, the cost of campus living, and meal plans.(3) Students who get scholarships don’t have to worry about being in debt because of loans because their college education is paid off from the scholarship. Then in the state of Pennsylvania 71 percent of students leave a public four year institution in debt around $32,528.(3) This is a normal person graduating from a college. They have to worry about paying back all of that money and students who get scholarships don’t have to worry about it.
They should also get paid because “not everything is equal, not everything is fair.” “so i don 't want to hear that it 's unfair to pay the quarterback of alabama more than the sociology students in the undergraduate college.” Athletes do a lot more than people realize being a student athlete really is not as easy as it sounds. The
While it seems like athletes should not be paid, the reality is that compensation of college athletes is needed to keep the game even and fair. As well as encourage them to finish their degree and not leave early for professional sports. Many athletes are being paid anyway, which makes it unfair for the schools that are truly playing by the rules. The NCAA is unfairly treating these athletes, receiving money, and not giving any to the athlete that made the money