College Athletes: Amateurs or Full Time Employees

Over the past 30 years or so college athletics have gained immense popularity and has resulted in an amazing amount of revenues from the NCAA and its Subsidiaries. The debate as to whether college athletes should be paid even beyond their athletic scholarships. While reading this paper it will answer the question as to whether college athletes should be paid by exploring the reasons for and against the payments of these athletes beyond their scholarship.

College athletes are undoubtedly some of the hardest working people in the world. Not only are they living the life of an average student, they also have a strenuous schedule with their specific sport. One of the most discussed topics in the world of college athletics is whether or not student-athletes should be paid money for playing sports. The people who disagree with the idea have some good arguments to make. Primarily that the athletes get to go to school for free for playing sports. Another argument is that if student-athletes were to get paid then it would ruin the amateurism of college sports. People who are against paying the athletes do not want to see the young people become focused on money. “Paying student-athletes

Should college student-athletes be paid has become a much debated topic. The incentive for a student-athlete to play a college sport should not be for money, but for the love of the game. It has been argued that colleges are making money and therefore the student-athlete should be compensated. When contemplating college income from sporting events and memorabilia from popular sports, such as football and basketball, it must not be forgotten that colleges do incur tremendous expense for all their sports programs. If income from sports is the driving factor to pay student-athletes, several major problems arise from such a decision. One problem is who gets a salary and the second problem is how much should they be paid. Also, if the income

For about a decade, the debate between whether collegiate athletes should be paid while playing has been contemplated. Now, the focus has moved from all sports to two specific areas, football and men’s basketball. Sprouting from many court cases filed against the NCAA to some ugly sandals dealing with the athletes themselves. In the 2010 – 2011 time frame, this controversy really sparked up chatter; eventually leading the current pled for sport reformation. Our student athletes are the ones who are at the expense here stuck in between this large argument. Over the past 10 years, there has been minor things done for either side and the players themselves have started taking things into their own hands. The year 2010 a total of 7 student

Sports have been a big part of culture in the United States since the 1900’s. Sports has become a multibillion dollar business of sort, with spots such as baseball, basketball, and football captivating americans.With american sports gaining popularity, the growth of college sports went on the rise. In 2013, The National Collegiate Athletic Association statistically generated $912,804,046 (Alesia, 2014). With all of this income that the NCAA brought in, one has to raise the question, should college athletes be paid? Even though college athletes are student athletes, they should be paid because they are practically employees to the college without compensation.

College sports are one of the largest and fastest growing markets in today’s culture. With some college sports games attracting more viewers than their professional counterparts, the NCAA is one of the most profiting organizations in America. Recently there has been controversy in the world of college sports as to whether the college athletes that are making their universities and the NCAA money should receive payment while they are playing their respective sport. Many believe that these athletes should be paid. Others argue that they are already receiving numerous benefits for playing that sport from their universities. Many of the proponents of paying college athletes are current or former college athletes who believe their hard work and hours put into practice and competing go under appreciated. They feel that while the athletes are making the university money, the athletes do not receive any cut of these profits. Opponents feel that athletes already receive numerous perks and should not receive extra compensation on top of the perks they already receive.

Whether or not student-athletes should be paid has been a hotly debated topic since the 1900s. College athletes spend just as much time, if not more time, practicing and devoting time and energy to sports as they do academics. For this, many athletes are rewarded with scholarship money. However, many people believe it is not enough. Should we pay student-athletes a slice of the wealth or is a full-ride scholarship enough? (Business Insider). What if the athlete gets injured? Where does the money come out of to support each athlete’s salary? The huge amount of money being generated from college sports has led some people to think that the athletes are entitled to some of that revenue. While, some think that student-athletes should be paid, others disagree for various reasons.

College athletics are becoming more like the professional leagues except for one big issue, money. Student athletes bring in a vast amount of revenue for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) not to mention recognition and notoriety regarding the athlete’s university. However, the debate continues as to whether student athletes should or should not receive payment for playing college sports.

The question of whether or not college athletes should get paid is of heated debate in todays times. While many believe that student athletes are entitled to income, It remains undougtibly a concern of moral interest to universities across the country. This paper is going to explain the pros and cons that come with allowing student athletes the right to receive a salary.

Day in and day out college athletes work endlessly in practice, school and work without any type of reward. Over the past couple of decades universities have attempted to get the NCAA to allow these universities to give student athletes some type of money for their work and dedication. In John Nocera’s NY Times article, “A Way to Start Paying College Athletes,” he uses strong logical reasoning and credible sources to effectively educate his audience. However, he drastically changes his tone when discussing certain ideas, by indirectly calling out those who do not believe in his way of paying college athletes.

Many others believe that college students should be paid. Athletes bring their schools money (Nocera et al.1). Therefore, many believe that the students should get some of the money that they help bring in. Players are part of the labor source and get nothing. There is no other industry where labor gets nothing. (Nocera et al.1). It is only fair if athletes get paid too. Athletes work hard to do what they do but do not get

As of today, there are over 460,000 NCAA student-athletes that compete in 24 different sports while in college throughout the United States (NCAA). Over the past couple decades, the argument for paying these college athletes has gained steam and is a hot topic in the sports community. However, paying these college athletes is not feasible because most universities do not generate enough revenue to provide them with a salary and some even lose money from the sports programs. These collegiate student-athletes are amateurs and paying them would ruin the meaning of college athletics. Also, playing college sports is a choice and a privilege with no mention or guarantee of a salary besides a full-ride scholarship. Although some argue that

The ongoing debate of the idea whether or not college student athletes should get paid has been dated back to the first intercollegiate competition. This occurred during a series of boat races between two major Ivy League schools, Harvard and Yale University. Similar to today’s world of entertainment, one of the main objectives was to please a sponsor of the boat races. By doing this, Harvard used a non-student as a steersman of the boat to participate in the regatta (Parent, 2004).

It is an age old debate on whether a college athlete should be paid. It is a high school student 's dream to play sports at the collegiate level. Many people question why the NCAA, coaches, and administrators are allowed to earn large amounts of money while the student athlete’s hard work and efforts are limited to a scholarship. Others feel that is should be considered a privilege that a college athlete can earn a college degree while enjoying what they love, by playing collegiate sports. Student athletes should not receive payment because they are already receiving payment in the form of an expensive athletic scholarship and are also able to receive the new cost of attendance stipend to assist with further financial burdens.

Athletics has become a large influence on alumni as they apply for their desired college. The average college environment has a mass glorification of their sports teams and their student athletes, which raises questions: Are student athletes taking away academic importance from colleges? Is college athletics simplifying academics for athletes? Should colleges pay their student athletes to play for extra curricular sports? The reality is that college athletes must remain unpaid in order to preserve the rest of the college environment inside and outside of campus. These amateur athletes, being unpaid, help to build a community of hardworking individuals, reduce the “buying” of players, and fund campus improvements and academic departments.