Changes In The NCAA

College athletes should be paid because of the hard work, dedication and effort they put into their respective sports. These athletes are a major source of income for their schools and they are not receiving a penny for it. These college athletes deserved to be paid, colleges are using these athletes to get money and they are never given anything but a pat on the back and a good job. College athletes work and train extremely hard to perform at the highest level possible. In most cases, they spend more time training and preparing for their sport than they actually do learning and studying. They put so much on the line to play and they get nothing in return. These college athletes literally make their schools millions of dollars every

College athletics is a billion dollar industry and has been for a long time. Due to the increasing ratings of college athletics, this figure will continue to rise. It’s simple: bigger, faster, stronger athletes will generate more money. College Universities generate so much revenue during the year that it is only fair to the players that they get a cut. College athletes should get paid based on the university’s revenue, apparel sales, and lack of spending money.

College athletes should receive some sort of payment for playing for their college. Many people believe that college athletes should be paid financially, because they are considered to be taken advantage of by the NCAA and most other school systems, because they should receive pay. Most college athletes are the main reason for huge profits from many merchandise sales; live events such as the game itself, and media and live coverage also provide sales increases. Differently from the professional sports, the athletes don’t get any type of cut. College teams may not have the same national expectations as the professional ones, but they are just as important, if not, even more important than professional athletes. Millions of dollars of merchandise,

With this large time restriction, it can be close to impossible to find and maintain a job. Student athletes need extra money in order to maintain a stable financial base. It would make so much more sense if athletes were compensated for the work they are putting in. They clock countless hours practicing and forming their game. A typical college athlete will spend just as much time practicing their sport as a normal job. They do all of this just so people on the side can reap the benefits. Student athletes should receive financial compensation because coaches and schools receive billions while the athletes receive nothing (Hopkins,par.7). It is scary to think how out of hand this could get if something is not changed. Why not give the money to the people who are working for it? Why not the players? Lack of time is not the only reason college athletes should be paid. The amount of money that the athletes generate is the main reason that the players should be payed.

Division 1 and Division 2 colleges provide over 2.9 billion dollars a year in scholarships to student athletes. Student athletes should not be compensated for participating in college sports. College athletes can receive full ride scholarships for playing their sport of choice. Is the 40,000 dollars they are receiving in scholarships not compensation; thus prompting the question is the top tier education they are being provided with, not compensation enough? Most of the thousands of students that participate in college sports compete for the love of the game, not for a paycheck. Furthermore, college athletes understand that they may not compete at the pro level, in fact, only 2 % of college athletes go on to play professionally. The main part of the term student-athletes is student. Students do not go to college expecting a check at the end of every month or to land a spot in the first round of the draft, instead the purpose is to receive an education. All things considered, student athletes should not receive compensation for playing sports in college because it would be almost financially impossible, some are already provided with money from scholarships , and finally they are being provided with an excellent higher education.

College athletic programs are among the most popular sporting events in America. With this rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue in recent years. In 2014, the NCAA made over 900 million dollars in revenue. Some collegiate coaches, such as Kentucky’s John Calipari, have yearly salaries in the millions, not counting incentives and endorsement deals. While, clearly, money is being made, NCAA regulations ban collegiate athletes from being paid. Many question this rule and argue that athletes at the college level earn and deserve pay for play. The debate to pay or not to pay college athletes rages on despite the latest court ruling supporting NCAA policies. Because colleges and universities earn such a profit from sporting events, many fans feel it is only fair to distribute some of the wealth to the players. Supporters of paying student athletes feel that these young men and women should be fairly compensated for the time demanded of the athletes and the stress put on the athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Those in favor of paying college athletes contend that athletic and academic work ethic at both high school and collegiate levels will improve, as well as, fiscal responsibility in these young adults. The NCAA argues that paying athletes would negatively affect their

Not only do different college sports bring in vastly different amounts of revenue, but different athletes on individual teams bring in vastly different amounts of revenue. Due to these differences, it is impossible to make a determination as to how funding would be allocated. William Jung Texas Christian University, 3 May 2013 explains Different athletes, even on the most profitable sports teams, bring in vastly different levels of revenue economics research articles have estimated the marginal revenue product (MRP) of a student-athlete in major college sports. The most recent study finds that the median MRP was about $44,000, which exceeds the average value of a scholarship, and that the mean MRP was over $91,000. For the best players, MRP exceeds $1,000,000. Dan Duggan New Jersey LLC., 10 March 2015 explains the impact of this which is Due to the necessity of providing equal pay for all players, it becomes logistically impossible to equitably compensate athletes. but as far as flat-out paying them, I just think that’s

Both sides of this argument have a strong case for why student athletes should, or should not be compensated. The problem might not be what it looks like at first. The main problem is the amount being spent on college athletes and the rising tuition costs for these universities. Duke University 's golf team spent an estimated $20,405 per player (Branstetter). The amount of money being spent on one player on their golf team is represented in the insane amount of tuition which is 60,000 dollars a year at Duke. This is a huge reason as to why colleges are so eager to get a cut of a 60 billion dollar industry. The issue of paying student athletes is not so one sided as athletes work very hard between school and sports, or that

March Madness collegiate basketball tournament, hosted by the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) tournament, generated “7.5 billion dollars in revenue over the past decade,” through advertising alone (Chupka, 2016). Currently, this year 's 2016 March Madness tournament is projected to make over “1 billion dollars” (Chupka, 2016). The NCAA is counting the cash, lots of it,” stated financial analyst Kevin Chupka. Does this solicit the view that the NCAA is a money-hungry organization? Through extensive research as a group, we will be collectively addressing the intrinsically paternalistic view that the NCAA has portrayed to all athletes and spectators alike. We will be focusing on the origin of the organization, motivation for implementation, specific divisional separation, financial asset allocation analysis, and the social stratification of the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Abstract:  Collegiate athletes participating in the two revenue sports (football, men's basketball) sacrifice their time, education, and risk physical harm for their respected programs. The players are controlled by a governing body (NCAA) that dictates when they can show up to work, and when they cannot show up for work. They are restricted from making any substantial financial gains outside of their sports arena. These athletes receive no compensation for their efforts, while others prosper from their abilities. The athletes participating in the two revenue sports of college athletics, football and men's basketball should be compensated for their time, dedication, and work put forth in their respected sports.

College athletes generate millions of dollars for their schools each year, yet they are not allowed to be compensated beyond a scholarship due to being considered amateurs. College athletes are some of the hardest working people in the nation, having to focus on both school courses and sports. Because athletics take so much time, these student-athletes are always busy. College football and basketball are multi-billion dollar businesses. The NCAA does not want to pay the athletes beyond scholarships, and it would be tough to work a new compensation program into the NCAA and university budgets. College athletes should be compensated in some form because they put in so much time and effort, generating huge amounts of revenue.

One of the most controversial subjects we as individuals hear about this day in age is whether or not college athletes deserve to be paid. Many people argue that these athletes do intact, deserve to be paid for their time and hard work. NCAA athletes create a name for themselves by playing and performing well on their college teams. The better these athletes perform, the more publicity the school revives. This then leads to higher ticket sales and stores around campus selling jerseys and other clothing items with athletes names and numbers on the back. NCAA schools have become comfortable with using athletes’ names to bring in a revenue for the school, and yet the athletes never see any of that money. On the other hand, many people believe that these athletes do not deserve, nor should they expect to receive payment in return. They believe that these scholarships and the education are payment in itself. Some even bring up the question on if it is affordable or even realistic to pay college athletes.

First, some say that college athletes should be paid because of the fact that the schools and the NCAA make billions. In an article from USA Today, it stated: “NCAA made more than $1 billion for the year” (Mama). On the other hand, they should not be paid because tons of the athletes get scholarships, they are rewarded with a free education, and they are technically getting around twenty-thousand dollars a year. First, in an article from Scholorshipstats.com in statistics from 2015 regarding the amount of scholarship money that was given out was nearly 2.2 billion dollars.

1). In addition to the APR and GSR, the NCAA revised their initial eligibility standards and progress-toward-degree requirements (LaForge & Hodge, 2011).

Student athletes are put the ringer day in and day out to perform in the sport they love. Specifically those sports of high revenue: football and basketball. College sporting events originally did not draw in enormous amounts of revenue. The NCAA was originally designed for everyone to be amateur; coaches, players, television contracts, and the university. Most scholars believe student athletes should be paid because of the evolution in college athletics; meaning how much revenue the universities are making. Now that there has been such drastic change throughout the years in college athletics; should there be a change in how the universities compensate the players?