College Athletes Should Be Paid

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 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

While people may have the opinion that college athletes should be paid, the debate for

Some college athletic departments are as wealthy as professional sports teams. The NCAA has an average annual revenue of $10.6 billion dollars. College athletes should be paid because of the amount of revenue that they bring to their college. Each individual college should pay its athletes based on how much revenue they bring to the college in which they attend. The colleges that win their Division title, their Conference title, or the National championship, give bonuses to the Head coach of that team. If colleges have enough money to give bonuses to coaches, that means they have money that is left over for the athlete who gives them recognition to pay them. College athletes should be paid based solely upon the performance and success that they have.

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.

The first president of the NCAA, Walter Byers, once stated, “All of this is not fair, and I predict that the amateur code now based on a forgone philosophy and held in place for shear economic purposes, will not long stand the test of the law” (Schooled-The Price of College Sports). So why has it? This controversial issue on whether college athletes should be compensated or not has been debated for years, but still has not been resolved. Although the highly disputed debate on whether to pay college athletes or not is very intricate, evidence clearly shows they should be further compensated.

College athletes should be paid and coaches should not be paid multimillion contracts. College athletes work really hard as they try as hard as they can to try to get noticed more to get into the professional league. Even though the NCAA makes 1 trillion dollars and it all goes to the professional leagues and to the college coaches the college teams still don't get paid. When a top tier basketball or football players plays it generates $200,000 dollars for their school and nothing for them. Their coaches get millions of dollars per year for their contract and the players get no money from any of those choices.Olympians that go into the olympics get paid for some reason. Olympian Kyle Snyder got money for winning and got 250,000 while setting

NCAA College athletes deserved to receive payment for the life they live. The reason why is due to schedule,the lack of money athletes can make, profit the schools make, and profit the NCAA makes..Although, college athletics in all organizations is important NCAA is the most profitable.As a college athlete who is also dealing with a school schedule they need a little help. The fact that people assume the scholarship makes everything so easy is false. A lot of hard work went into getting those scholarships and that shouldn’t be taken away from them. NCAA College athletes deserve to be paid.

Some people would say that a person who works fifty to sixty hours a week without pay is being taken advantage of. For example, think of college athletes, and the labor they assert for no pay. College athletes spend massive amounts of time to dedicate themselves to their sport and their studies. They help the NCAA earn exuberant amounts of money, but see little in return. The only benefit college athletes receive today is scholarships, which sometimes do not even cover full-tuition or meal plans. In the opinion of former Ohio State cornerback Bradley Roby and many other players, a scholarship is not enough (Briggs). Players are often forced to struggle through college by taking out loans to pay for expenses that are not covered by their

Whether or not college athletes should get paid is a topic that has been heavily debated recently. Some questions that arise when debating this topic are: Where will the money come from? Will paying college athletes ultimately ruin college sports? Isn’t full scholarships enough for college athletes? College athletes of all sports, not just football, deserve to be paid.

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.

We are all aware of the common misconception that college athletes should be paid. However, I believe that college athletes that not only should they not be paid but are undeserving of being paid. There are many things to consider and take into account when mentioning compensation and college athletes. The truth is, paying colleges athletes leads to a number of internal and external conflicts that could easily be avoided.

The four individuals chosen for this interview included two Latinas, an individual of African descent and an individual who is both Guyana and Venezuela but does not identify as Latina. Before conducting this interview I explained to the participant what the assignment consisted of and what would be asked of them for the interview portion. I told each participant that I would give them a phrase and that upon hearing the phrase, would be asked to give three words that come to mind when they hear that phrase. After the explanation, I would ask if they understood and then asked if I had their consent to participate in this activity. Once they agreed to participate in this interview, I would go to the interview. It is worth mentioning that all four participants live in the same house, so although the interviews were conducted individually, many times the other participants would listen in to the responses that the other participants would give.

The strong point of such an interview that it's somehow relaxing and participants, do not feel to be obliged to reply the questions, as they can always modify or add something to the response, or to develop from their own experience, bring their own ideas. However, there is always a weak point in case of these interviews. The participants can very easily bring the conversation and the main subject in another direction that the initially asked

There are few ethical concerns within this research question. Firstly, it may be the case that the subjects can become distressed due to the sensitive nature of the research question. If at any point this occurs during the interview, I will switch off the recorder until the participant is ready to continue; if at all. If a participant wishes to withdraw at any point during the research, they will be able to do so freely. Each participant will be provided with a consent form, which they must sign before the study commences. They will also be provided with a copy of this consent form. Furthermore, a debrief form will be provided at the end of the research, which will illustrate my contact details. I will express that they are entirely welcome to contact me at any stage during and after the research if they have any other questions or concerns.