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.
After graduating from High School one may choose to further his or her education through college. People do this for many reasons. Some people do it for professional benefits, while others do it for sports athletics. This paper will be focusing on those who do go to college for athletic benefits. Specifically, this is focusing on how these college athletes do not get paid and why they should be paid. 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.
Paying college athletes has been a trending topic around the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Universities should not allow players to receive compensation for their performances. When money is involved many problems can arise. There are many different kinds of sports within a university; thus causing, many questions to develop. For example, will all sport athletes get paid and will some athletes get paid more than other?
College athletes put in a lot of time, effort, and work into the sport they’ve played since they were young, but they aren’t getting paid for it. These student athletes deserve to be paid because they put in countless hours of hard work and balance sports with school work. The first reason athletes in college do deserve to be compensated is because they don 't have time to fit in work with a school and athletic schedule. College athletes don’t have time to get a real job. Student athletes have a very busy schedule, they don’t have time to fit in a job.
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.
Division I Athletes Should Be Paid In college there can be a wide of activities to enjoy. Social and academic clubs, fraternities and sororities however, there is one activity very popular in universities that not only gives students a sense of unity and pride as they cheer for their home team but generates millions of dollars in revenue for the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association): college sport teams. With the popularity of college sports and the vast amount of revenue colleges are generating from these sports an argument about whether these college athletes should be given a salary has begun to surface. Tracey M DiLascio, a graduate of Boston University school of Law and a former judicial clerk in the New Jersey Superior Court, states “The NCAA estimated revenue in 2014 was nearly $1 billion, 80 to 90 percent which came from the Men’s division 1 basketball tournament” (3).
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.
Should Collegiate Athletes Be Introduced to a Pay Grade? Due to the many amenities collegiate athletes already receive, such as special registration for classes, large scholarships, and thousands of dollars each in terms of travel and team expenses, student-athletes should not be paid. While many college sports supporters feel college athletes should be referred to in the same interest as big-time professional athletes due to their experience and the difficulty of performing well in their specific sport, a more in-depth perspective needs to be taken on the subject. Student-athletes attending college spend a great amount of time devoted to their individual sport, but even though they spend immense amounts of time working to get better on
College athletes like most employees work countless hours a week, miss many school days, and put themselves at risk for injury on a daily basis, but unlike regular employees they do not receive paychecks. NCAA players are compensated for their contribution to their universities through scholarships. It is true that most scholarships cover tuition, and room and board but many fail to realize the many other expenses a college athlete may face. These players are working for a multi billion dollar industry which is exploiting them for their talents and they should be paid fairly for their contribution.
The argument made by these two professors state that Division 1 players qualify as employees under Federal Labor Laws. Since players are under this law, the McCormick’s feel players should get financially compensated due to the physical rigors and balance education simultaneously (Cooper, 2011). It’s unbelievable how this couple thinks Division 1 athletes should get paid. The privilege to attend a university that is costly on full scholarship should be more than enough. Furthermore, student-athletes received stipends as an allowance assist with their livelihood.
Many people never want to be the person putting money into another person’s pocket; paying college athletes is no exception. College athletes are at a college to learn about a specific degree. They are not at college to play sports (Cooper 12). Many of the college athletes aren’t considering their education, they want to play their sports.
Another reason that it would be bad for college athletes to be paid is because the colleges would build a bad reputation for being all about the money and not about education. Already, some colleges are accused of using money to influence players into going to their school. "If a high-school football prodigy reported that he chose Michigan not for its academic quality, tradition, or beautiful campus but because it outbid all other suitors, a connection to the university’s values would be lost." (Yankah). Ever since the first college institutions were founded, they were either known for their academics or athletics.
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.
As we all know, college can be very expensive. With the scholarships and grants, college student-athletes can go to school for free and get their day-to-day needs such as food, housing, clothes, etc. Ackerman and Scotts, purpose is to show that college is a learning experience and with the help of college sports, the student-athletes will have a chance to grow and be successful in life rather than being exploited. However, critics believe that college student-athletes should be paid salary, like professional athletes, because they want people to see the “athletes are the rule, not the expectation” (par 11). They want the audience to think that it’s a rule for student-athletes to go play pro after two years, will no expectation.