Argument for Paying College Athletes

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) makes roughly $1 billion in income annually and the athletes do not receive any of it. This topic has been debated for many years and is still being debated. The debate dates back to the 1980s and now athletes are demanding that they deserve to be paid since profits are made off of them. Some athletes such as former and current basketball and football players came together with lawsuits to federal courts asking for rewards from profits NCAA makes gets of them. Research has opened several different opinions on this matter. There are many pros and cons for paying college athletes. College sports provide a huge source of the university’s income. The athletes, however, receive their scholarship

College athletes have much more responsibilities to worry about than pros, and scholarships don 't help athletes that much and they often don’t even finish college. The problem is college athletes don 't get paid when they have twice the responsibilities of pro athletes. college athletes have to juggle their sport practices and games, being on the road a lot of the time, going to classes everyday, and going to work so they can have money to eat. The solution would be to take out of all the money college athletes make from games, and memorabilia. NCAA is a billion dollar organization and they don 't pay the very people who make them the

How much harder would athletes work if they were paid for their performance on the field, track, or court? College athletes are put to the test each and everyday, they risk their health to entertain millions day in and day out. College athletes deserve part of the money due to the revenue they bring in for their schools and for the NCAA, they deserve the money because they do not have time to get a job because they are practicing and training at least 40 hours a week, they should also get paid because they are used as marketing models for the ncaa and for their universities. College athletes also should not get paid because they are already getting paid in scholarship money. College athletes deserve to get paid because they are putting their bodies on the line just so the NCAA and their sponsors can make money.

When it comes to college athletics, there always will be a problem that arises. It is one of the most controversial topics there is. One of the main issues within athletics is the idea of whether to pay college athletes or not. Several studies have been done along with articles from various sources. This has been on the rise especially since “March Madness” is coming up. “March Madness” may only consist of three weekends, however, an 11 billion dollar deal is made to televise the games (Wilbon). This is when you have to take the time to sit back and contemplate whether these college athletes really are getting the fair end of the stick. Under NCAA laws it is forbidden to pay these athletes for their performance yet at the same time they

The System for college athletes isnt perfect, and needs to be worked on, a big problem we cannot seem to agree is how to compensate the student-athletes who drive the NCAA. I would like to start off with a question. Are college athletes being compensated enough for the effort they put forth today? Every Day they wake up early and represent their university whether they are putting in work in class or on the field. Each student-student athlete generates tons of money for their university and they don’t see a dime other than their scholarship that may or may not been renewed every year. Keep that question in mind while reading this essay, and form your own opinion.

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.

After high school, some students decide to make the decision to go to college to further their education, earn a degree, have fun, and some, to play sports. College sporting events bring in money through tickets, jerseys, shirts, and other gear. The money made for all of these items and expenses go to paying coaches, the school, charities, utilities, and other expenses a school has to pay to have a sports team. Most college athletes are given scholarships to allow them not to have to pay for college or anything that comes with the college experience. Some athletes, that are good enough athletically, do not ever pay for tuition, living expenses, meal plans, books, and everything else a normal student would have to pay for. For some college athletes that is not enough. Some college athletes believe that they should get a paycheck based on the money that the school makes on putting on sporting events that these athletes are participating in. Other college athletes are satisfied with the scholarship given to them and do not seek additional money.

The argument of paying college athletes outside of the scholarships they may be receiving is becoming a rather popular topic. “Should College Athletes Be Paid?”, an article in Santa Clara Law written by Ron Katz, Isac Vaughn and Mike Gilleran weighs both sides of paying student athletes. They argue the point that regardless how you look at the situation, a handful of college sports have become a business. Sports such as Men’s football and basketball being broadcast on television now generate approximately $750 per year for colleges. It is acknowledged that the ones who are bringing in this money (the student athletes) are not receiving revenue from the sport they are playing. The idea of treating all sports the same was possible back in the day but today you cannot deny that one sport may bring in much more than another. Therefore Gilleran et. al. concludes that each school should be able to choose if they want to start using the business idea and paying the athletes for their work. “Alabama head coach, Nick Saban’s contract extension calls for him to make $45 million over the next eight years. His players, on the other hand, receive only the NCAA scholarships that does not even cover their basic living expenses.” (Gilleran et. al. par. 27) How is it that

This leaves basically give no time to earn money. The way life is for a student athlete is very different from what a regular student’s life is. A student-athlete is required to attend practice for 10 to 20 hours per week which is around 4 hours a day, traveling to games everywhere throughout the season, and at the same time, having to deal with the same amount of academic work as regular students. Everyone who is against paying student-athletes rely on the fact that they get paid through scholarships, so apparently they're already getting paid. Yes, a scholarship indeed is a form of compensation. A scholarship is good to have, but it is not enough to go through life as a student-athlete. A scholarship will not cover the bills. Not only that but, unlike regular students without athletics, student-athletes must also most of the time take care of their families and spouses. Believe it or not many student athletes are married, and most of the athletes married have children. The students which don’t have spouses or children, most of them have to care for parents and siblings.

Some may say student – athletes have it easy because they get to go to school for free and live the life of a college athlete when that is not the case in most situations. College athletes are in the business of marketing at a young age without playing professional sports which is a business. Which is why I believe student – athletes should be paid to play college sports. My reasons for this argument are that the student athlete may need spending money and money to support their families, secondly the schools along with their sport profits off of the students athletes names, and lastly for big events some student athletes are required to miss schools due to these events.

Over the last few years there has been renewed controversy about whether college athletes should be paid. The idea of paying college athletes goes back to the early 1900s with one of the first inter collegiate competitions between Harvard and Yale. The modern position of the National Collegiate Athletic Association is that athletic scholarships provide a free college education in return for participating on the university team. Many college athletes dedicate more than forty hours of training per week. College is expensive. How can we expect college athletes to pay for books and other basic necessities if they are busy practicing or participating in home games or traveling to away games? The NCAA needs to start paying these athletes to supplement

An athlete scholarship covers room, board, and tuition. Universities estimate the cost of attendance runs between $1,500 and $2,500 a year beyond the basics covered by athletic scholarships. (Looney 2) Some of the athletes that are participating in the NCAA are not from wealthy backgrounds. Their families cannot afford to give them $1,500 to $2,500 a year. In this case the athletes will have to work to survive in school. Until recently college athletes were not able to work during the season according to NCAA rules. Now that athletes are permitted to work, there are limitations that make it hard for athletes to find a job. One of the limitations that the NCAA has is that college athletes are not able to work for companies that are owned by alumni of the school. In some places this is difficult cause in college towns everyone one has some kind of tie to the school. Another limitation to an athlete working is his or her schedule. Student athletes have very limited time due to attending classes, schoolwork, practices, and games (which include traveling all over the country). After a student athlete does all of this, they hardly have time left to spend with

The NCAA and the universities represented by it are now making more money than ever through their athletic programs than ever before. However, due to amateurism regulations set by the NCAA, the college athletes that generate the massive revenue the NCAA receives are not paid at all. The article opens with the argument that college athletes should be paid for their play. The argument is supported through information proving that the NCAA undervalues athletes through the money they generate for their school versus the amount of scholarship money the school provides them with. The article also discusses how the NCAA also prevents athletes from marketing their own image and

College athletes don’t have to worry about paying for books, meals, or the sport equipment they use to work out with. They don’t need money to throw away on food because they possibly have a certain meal plan provided by their athletic trainers. College athletes still have time to get a job during the off-season. Many people have to pay for college and student athletes with scholarships are the lucky ones who

Opponents against paying student-athletes say that they should not be paid because through scholarships, they're already being paid. Yes, a scholarship is a form of payment. A scholarship is nice, but it is not enough. A scholarship will not pay the bills. Moreover, unlike ordinary students without athletics, student-athletes must also many times care for families and spouses. Actually, approximately 24% of student athletes are married, and of that 24%, about 62% have children. Of the students without their own spouses or children, many must care for parents and siblings.