Whether college athletes should or should not get paid has been a controversial topic throughout the Collegiate Athletic Association for many years now. According to the article “My Priceless Opportunity” by Bill Walton , he believes that NCAA student athletes should not get paid because “the players entering the game know the rules going in and that they have been given a chance to make something of their lives in exchange for the privilege of being a student athlete”. Others like Michael Wilbon, author of “As Colleges’ Greed Grows, So Does the Hypocrisy”, thinks student athletes should get paid due to their hard work and labor. While I respect and admire the diligent task of being both a student and an athlete, I strongly agree with Bill Walton and the many others who support college athletes not being paid. …show more content…
They house you, feed you, clothe you, educate you, give you a living stipend, and you get to travel the world. These opportunities are priceless”. Most scholarships to universities provide you with every necessity, if not more, so what else could you possibly need? The athletes obtain their compensation with the benefits they already received from the scholarship, so allowing the players to be paid more than what the scholarship contributes may lead to mismanagement and the students trying to negotiate separate deals with the NCAA. From the article, “Despite Criticism, NCAA Takes a Firm Stance on Professionalism”, written by Steve Weiberg, he includes bylaw 12 from the Administrative NCAA Bylaw
In the world of college athletics there are endless topics discussed daily and most pertain to money. An issue that falls under this category includes the heated debate involving whether or not student athletes should receive money. Many people say student athletes should receive compensation according to their specific needs because they spend so much time earning their scholarship and have no time to work. On the other hand, the stronger argument is student athletes should not be able to acquire additional funds in order to help aid them through college. An athlete knows what he or she is involving themselves in before any money issue is even brought up. Signing a letter of intent shows that
Many believe that college athletes should not be paid. The main debate against compensating college athletes is that they are at the university for educational purposes and playing sports is a benefit. The NCAA states, “Student-athletes are students first and athletes second. They are not university employees who are paid for their labor” (McCauley 10). Universities get all the financial benefits of the money earned from sports played from things such as team jerseys, sports passes and tickets, etc. Many argue that it is only fair to give a portion of the profit to the players that earned the money. It is very important when arguing for or against paying college athletes to not take into fairness, but to hold
Student athletes should not be paid. A misconception is that all athletic programs in the NCAA make head-over-toe profit. There are three divisions of intercollegiate athletics, and frankly division three athletic programs don’t make as much or have a profit when compared to division one programs. “Critics of paying college athletes note that only a small number of them compete in sports or on teams that actually generate revenue”. (Paying College Athletes) The truth is only a fraction of athletic programs are actually profitable, while most pose a cost to the institution. The question arises primarily in division one programs and typically in the sports of basketball and football. The argument is made that these institutions receive millions of dollars from their student athletes’ performance, in return they should be paid.
These scholarships give these athletes everything that they need and much more. Getting paid by the college would defeat the purpose of the scholarship; so the scholarships will be taken away and then the athletes will be left alone dealing with their own money which could prove to be difficult for most of them to manage along with school work and practices. They have everything that they need right in front of them provided for the most part by the school and sports administration department.
We often forget that playing a sport is not the only way to earn a scholarship. Many students are accepted for exceptional grades, involvement in the band, clubs, or being well rounded. Most of these students just have to study to keep their scholarship, while the athletes have to work hard and be a student. In a competitive market, “workers” are paid according to the value of the output they produce (Heath). It does not seem right that the college journalist can sell their piece to a paper for extra cash, or the local band can play for a few dollars at the bar Saturday night, or the biology major that takes an internship at the school lab can be profitable yet college athletes cannot. Under the NCAA they are not allowed to make any money of their skill. Any college student should be able to endorse products (Wilbon). This is why the idea of going to school for free should not be an argument against paying athletes, because that is not the case and they have earned it.
For years now there have been the argument if college athletes should be paid to play or not. It is an ongoing debate between many people including the National Collegiate Athletic Association(NCAA), athletes, coach, and other various people. The has debate has gone far enough that a lawsuit has started over it. There are many arguments for college athletes being paid such as; the athletes do not have time to work, their images are being used without any type of pay, and how the NCAA and coaches make millions of dollars off of the players while the players do not make anything. On the flip side of this, arguments that the athletes should not be paid include; they get paid in other varies ways, the average college athletic department loses enough money already without paying the athletes, and the fact that not all college athletes are in school to become professional athletes anyhow so making money from their athletic abilities should not be an issue for them at all.
After numerous scandals over the past several years of college athletes receiving improper benefits, the question has come up whether or not college athletes should be paid or not. College sports are a growing industry, and we have seen money destroy organizations, teams, and players in this industry. The determination and motivation of college athletes supersedes professional athletes by their will to win; therefore, college athletes should not be paid.
Remy, D. (2012). Why the New York Times ' Nocera is wrong. NCAA News, 5.
Kids grow up loving to play sports in their free time. They never get paid to play when they are at a young age. They do it for the love of the game and for the need for competition. This is the way that it is in college right now. College athletes compete with all their hearts to be the best they can for their schools. They don’t get paid a cent. It has been a common debate if that is the right way to do it. Should it be that college athletes do not deserve to get paid for playing a sport? It should not be this way. College athletes certainly should get paid to play.
Have you paid attention to all of the news that has been surfacing about collegiate sports lately? It is a big topic now days in the world of sports on weather college athletes should be getting paid to play sports. College athletics have gained great popularity of the past few decades, and have brought schools lots of revenue. A lot of college athletes think they should be getting paid for their services they do for their school. College sports like basketball and football generate over six billion dollars a year, but none of it goes to the athletes. Athletes should be paid for all of the time and dedication they put forth to their sport and the effort they put towards school to be eligible to play, athletes should get paid for all the money they bring to their school by playing sports, and players should also be paid for putting their bodies on the line while playing sports.
In recent years mixed feeling have been discussed over college student athletes getting paid. Some feel that players should be rewarded for the huge amount of revenue generated on behalf of their play. Especially when coaches are receiving huge multi million dollar contracts. Currently, NCAA rules do not allow players to receive any compensation. The non-fiction article, “Should College Player get Paid?”, written by Michael Gonchar, explains how NCAA classifies Division I football players as amateurs, not professionals, student-athletes, not employees, which is how colleges get away with paying them nothing. With respect to how hard and how much time college athletes put in, college football players should not get paid due to scholarships, playing is a privilege not a job, and money allocation . They should how ever be compensated, such as
The question whether “If college athletes should get paid or not?” has been debated for many years. The debate is brought up every year during the NCAA men’s basketball, March Madness competition, and starts again when football season begins. College athletes do provide entertainment for sports fans, but all the benefits that they do receive should limit them from being paid. The benefits student athletes obtain is free tuition, health coverage, and an opened opportunity for their future.
One of the most popular pastimes in America is watching college sports. Whether it’s football, baseball, or basketball, these student-athletes bring fans, money, and sponsorships to their schools. So why shouldn't these athletes be paid? The answer is that student-athletes should not be paid, because they have the ability to earn scholarships or financial aid, college athletes are paid in other ways than financially, and not all schools have the money to pay them. Ultimately, paying college athletes would ruin the current culture and competitiveness of college sports.
There has been considerable controversy over the past years on whether or not National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes should be paid or not. Fans, players, and the board of the NCAA all have their separate beliefs on why or why not the athletes should be paid. These young athletes work their hardest on the fields and attract millions of fans and think money fans pay to watch them perform, can go to them. The University of Alabama made approximately $124 Million dollars in operating revenue in 2008. Based upon those statistics, you can see that athletes have a reasonable argument of why they should be paid a salary when the school is able to afford to do so. While one side believes they should be paid, another side believes they shouldn’t be paid because instead of receiving pay, that possible salary is substituted with a scholarship and education.
College athletes are finally getting attention on the fact that they are not paid. I believe that whether or not it is college or pro sports they deserve a salary. These players put their heart and soul on the field and get nothing in return. In the articles “Athletes New Day” by Paul Marx and “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid” by Warren Hartenstine, the reasons for college athletes to be paid are very evident. No matter the case, if the students move on to pro sports or not after college, they should be entitled to some pay for their contributions. College athletes deserve to be compensated for their playtime in these sports, sales of products with their name on it, and even compensation for their injuries.