There has been a significant discussion in regards to whether collegiate athletes should or should not get paid while they are in school. Collegiate athletes all across the nation perform for their dedicated fan bases week in and week out. A lot goes into these marveled matchups that goes unseen. Hard work, dedication, blood, sweat, and tears are shed, yet you wouldn't know that if you're just a typical fan. These are a few of the things that these so called fans don't get to experience firsthand. They don't understand the monotonous long drawn out practices or the treacherous heat endured. Why do athletes do it? All to see a few thousand fans smile in your face and to continue to cheer for the institution you represent. For what? Is it fair to showcase the talents of athletes and not provide them with compensation? After all, the prohibition of student athletes using their likeness for monetary assets is downright unfair. You'd think because of the popularity of collegiate sports, revenue would be dispersed amongst the participants, but this is the absolute opposite of the truth. These collegiate athletes are doing a lot of work for their respective institutions that seems to go unnoticed. From my perspective, I don't believe withholding funds from athletes is necessarily fair. Whether it be football, basketball, baseball, or track, collegiate sports have brought in a surplus of revenues for college …show more content…
Although, some programs are encompassed in success stories none of their athletes are paid. Some collegiate programs do so much for the college that they serve as the core foundation of the institutions budget. They offer the resources needed to establish services on college campuses that would not be attainable without the athletic
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
In their journal “The Case of Paying College Athletes”, John Siegfried and Allen Sanderson point out many discrepancies in NCAA policies, but do not support monetary payment. They argue: “College athletes are in fact currently paid, in the sense that the majority receive grants-in-aid that cover most – although not all – of their college expenses.” (Pg. 127). After this statement, the authors detail the demanding payments varying depending on each college
College Varsity Athletes Should be Paid In this paper, I argue that college varsity athletes should be paid for playing sports that bring in revenue. In particular, College football and basketball because they bring in the majority of the revenue for the schools. The revenue accomplished by college sports programs continues to increase, due to the growth in interest of the NCAA basketball tournament and the college football playoffs (Berry III, Page 270). Throughout the past few years, one of the main topics debated in college sports is whether or not the athletes should 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.
Major college football and basketball programs bring in millions of dollars a year for their university and the NCAA. Many people claim the players are the reason these programs make so much money and should be compensated for their work. At first this seems to be logical, but there are many flaws with paying athletes. However, athletes should be able to pursue business opportunities. College athletes should not be paid for playing sports, but should be able to have an outside income.
According to Michael Wilbon of ESPN said that the NCAA signed a contract with CBS Sports that spans from 2011-2024 and costed the NCAA $10.8 billion. That contract will pay the NCAA about $830 million dollars per year. So the profit for NCAA is at least $1 billion dollars in a span of 3 weeks of basketball. So where does this money go obviously it goes somewhat to the players but it mainly goes to the university, I think athletes should directly get that money so they can pay for stuff that they need during their time at college. According to Joe Nocera of the New York Times, if college athletes were paid there might be a less likely chance of scandals like the one at Miami University.
On top of a scholarship, student athletes are also provided with many free things such as game tickets, apparel and equipment. Although scholarships take off a lot of the cost to go to college, they aren’t enough on their own. Most scholarships are not full ride and students are left to pay some school fines. Student athletes need an income to help pay the extra money they owe that the scholarship doesn’t pay for, and also so that they have some money when they come out of college. Paying college athletes is a way to encourage students to play sports.
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.
Taking a look at the average college student, should they be paid for what they are studying? Probably not. Then why should college athletes be paid? They shouldn 't get paid just because of their athletic ability. They shouldn 't be paid because they are students, not professionals.
Mike says”Students all over the world work hard at the sport that true love and don’t get a lot in return for it”. While college athletes may not exactly be employees, they are more than just students. Consider the life of a student-athlete, though. The average Division I football player dedicates over 43hours per week to his sport, meaning that he spends more than a typical American work-week training and playing football, in addition to his class work. Their work, which generates exorbitant amounts of money year in and year out, deserves Compensation.
It includes only those funds that end up in the NCAA 's bank account.” The FCAA being the organization that would collect and distribute the capital. This research paper described why college athletes should be paid. They make personal sacrifices, and take risks in order to produce revenue for their schools.
College schools provide for student athletes enough. They pay for everything provided for the the students whether it’s scholarships or playing in the school games. Through it all it really doesn’t matter if they (the athletes) get paid for, it’s the opportunity that the coaches and university give them to play on the
College athletes have never been paid, but many people believe that college athletes are already getting paid when they receive full and half ride scholarships. When they receive those scholarships, colleges pay for their room and board, tuition, and books. However, there are athletes that do not even get that. Some athletes have to pay for college out of their own pockets. Plus, it is believed that athletes already receive special treatment.
The athletes don’t know how to handle all this money; so by having college athletes it helps them with handling their money. It teaches them money management at a young age. Others may say that college athletes shouldn’t get paid because they are given scholarships. The only problem is that according The New York Time they say that “ The average athletic scholarship is less than a $11,000 a year”(Zissou). This is not for kids who are going to community college or anything.