College Athletes Should Be Paid

The NCAA has been around and evolved since the beginning of college sports. This organization is a non-profitable organization, but ironically makes more than millions of profit per year. Branch states “that money comes from a combination of ticket sales, concession sales, merchandise, licensing fees, and other sources—but the great bulk of it comes from television contract”(pg. 228). Meanwhile, the student-athletes do not receive any of this money. This is the start of an unsubstantial business between universities built around amateurism.

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.

To pay or not to pay, that is the question. This question, one of disparity, confronts the NCAA all the time today. Football and basketball players generate billions of dollars in revenue for their schools but do not receive any. College athletes cannot be paid because of the “no pay” rules and the “Principle of Amateurism.” The NCAA will not have to deal with as many rule violations and scandals. Plus, the NCAA could still label an amateurism principle without actually crossing the line with professionalism. Because athletes are focusing solely on sports and have no time to do anything else, athletes need money to support themselves. Not only does the school acquire revenue from ticket sales, apparel and sponsorships, but it becomes more

Many student-athletes can have their whole career, their passion, and love of their respected sport taken away from them with just 1 play. The student-athletes are representing their respective school and making the school more popular and more students will want to enroll there and the student-athletes are making the NCAA millions of dollars, but the NCAA will not give the student-athletes just a little allowance because it will “ruin the integrity of college sports”. Student athletes-athletes should get paid because students could get hurt in one play, the NCAA makes millions of dollars on the the players, and it will make the players do smarter things with their money.

The debate on whether college athletes should be paid to play is a sensitive controversy, with strong support on both sides. College athletics have been around for a long time and always been worth a good amount of money. This billion dollar industry continues to grow in popularity and net worth, while they continue to see more and more money come in. The student-athletes who they are making the money off of see absolutely none of this income. It is time that the student-athletes start to see some of this income he or she may by helping bring the National Collegiate Athletic Association. There are many people who do not think this is in the best interest of the student-athletes or Universities, but that being said there are also many

In the recent past, college athletics has gained massive fame in the United States. The immense fame of the college athletics has developed over the past twenty years. The massive development and fame of the college athletics have resulted in improved incomes for the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA). Due to increased revenue received by the NCAA, the participates in athletics in the colleges has fuelled the argument of whether the college athletes need to be paid and rewarded more than just the athletic scholarships. In this research paper, I will take a stab at to respond the question whether they should be paid by delving the explanations for and against the payment of the college athletes (Adams and Becky 108).

College athletes should be paid. The athletes put in as much work as the people who do get paid. Why should they not be paid? There are many pros for why they should get paid, but there are also many cons on why they should not get paid. The athletes should get paid because of how hard they work in season and the off-season. Do not pay all of the athletes, but pay the ones who are at a D1 college. The athletes should get paid because they put in the same amount of time as the pros do, and the pros get paid.

College sports is a multi-billion dollar industry. Each year thousands of high school students are recruited to play college sports, but under strict conditions. Students are required to do well in athletics while keeping up with their academics. College athletes spend up to forty five hours per week on practices, training, and games. In addition, they spend roughly forty hours on their academics. The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletics Association) does not think it is necessary to pay these athletes because they want to maintain the “amateur sport” status. According to Stanley Eitzen in his “College Athletes should be Paid, “The universities and the NCAA claim their athletes in big-time sports programs

Kim Kardashian’s ex lover is not just famous for dating a “Kardashian”; he was more famous for the controversial issue with the NCAA due to proceeds given to him for his ability on the field. Reggie Bush made a lot of accomplishments while being a college athlete. Because of his skills, he was rewarded an amount of money. While Reggie Bush was playing at the University of Southern California, statistics show that the college generated roughly fifty-five million dollars. That’s a lot of money for one athlete to bring in. Every day we hear more and more stories about NCAA investigators and colleges being punished for “paying” players. However, college athletes bring in a lot of money. Therefore, they should get a percentage whether it is a small amount or a large amount. It will depend on the athletes’ ability. While some may argue that paying college athletes to play is wrong, college athletes have a marketable skill and should be paid for their skill.

Should the NCAA allow college football athletes be shown the money…or not? This is a debatable question facing college sports. College football players generate billions in revenue for the NCAA and intercollegiate athletic departments of their respective universities, yet are only compensated by colleges through athletic scholarships that cover tuition, room and board, and books. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), on one side of the debate are the defenders of amateur passion, asserting that to play for pay would destroy campus sports and a football player should play for the love of the game. The National College

Intro: Imagine this: full time job, full time college student. Tying to juggle your job and academics at the same time, putting equal time in for each. Then, at the end of the month you didn’t get paid for the work that you were achieving in your job. This is how college athletes are feeling today. Ineffective, useless and unproductive. Many people in the college sports industry are getting paid except for the people who are accomplishing the most, the athletes. They put in the work, time, and effort to their athletics but their academics are being overlooked totally. With so many mixed emotions and laws standing in the way, there has not been as much commotion over this issues as there should be. College athletes should be getting paid because of the work that they are putting into the system, and the results that they are getting out of the game and audience.

Is an athletic scholarship really enough of a “payment” to reimburse athletes for the billions of dollars made by the NCAA every year? This issue of paying collegiate athletes, especially football and basketball players, has been around for many years. Athletes, students, bystanders, and NCAA analysts and authority figures have a strong opinion about paying college athletes. Whether college athletes should be paid or not is a debate topic that is more prevalent today than ever.

professional athletes. These athletes are often one step away from either being picked up by a professional team, or one step away from being recognized just as much as a professional athlete. What separates college athletics from professional athletics is the pay and perks that come along with playing in a collegiate division versus those that involve playing at a professional level.

The NCAA is exploiting their athletes. It uses a player to make money, but in turn, limits the player from making his own. It’s hypocrisy. The NCAA remains free to exploit its players for every commercial dollar while claiming its amateurism policy protects players from exploitation (Huma). This needs to be fixed. If it’s a free market for everybody else but the players, then we’ve got a problem, (Chen). Let the players access the free market and experience commercialization.

“ We do have hungry nights that we don't have enough money to get food in “ said Shabazz Napier. College Athletes around the country do not have enough money to feed themselves and the NCAA gives players a very little amont of money which limits there options. A College Athlete should never be in a situation where they are deciding wether they are going to pay for there next meal or put gas in there car. Most people did not know that College Athletes can not get a job due to certain guidelines. Scholarships often do not cover the full living expenses of an Athlete. Therefore it can be seen through one’s point of view that college athletes should be paid because they are unable to get a job due to NCAA regulations and shortage of time due