College Athletes Should Be Paid

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 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

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

The popularity of college athletics have risen immensely over the past few years. The idea of paying college football athletes has been a continuous debate since the early 1900’s. This paper will debate whether college athletes should be paid a monetary compensation outside of their scholarships. This will be done by examining reasons for and against the monetary revenue for the athletes.

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.

With the universities pulling in more than twelve billion dollars, the rate of growth for college athletics surpasses companies like McDonalds and Chevron (Finkel, 2013). The athletes claim they are making all the money, but do not see a dime of this revenue. The age-old notion that the collegiate athletes are amateurs and students, binds them into not being paid by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). This pay for play discussion has been talked about since the early 1900s but recently large steps are being made to actually make a change. There are many perspectives on the payment of collegiate student athletes coming from the NCAA, the athletes themselves, and the university officials.

The Final Four generated, alone 1.3 million dollars” (Goldman). Paying athletes could also help them after college. If they don’t end up going pro they still will be in less debt. This could help there career after college which is a big step in life. Also more money can let them get healthier food and stay healthier. Plus health is a key part in success.

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.

Ever since college students started playing sports, back in 1879 when Harvard played Yale in the first collegiate sports game, the question of whether college athletes should be paid was addressed. From that point on athletes, coaches, and college administrators have brought forward points agreeing or disagreeing with the notion of paying college students. The students argue that they deserve to be paid due to the revenue that they bring for the college and because of the games they play and the championships they win. At first the idea of paying college athletes was out of the question, but now the argument has gone from a simple yes or no to a heated debate. Since college athletes are given a free education, they should not also be paid.

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.

In the United States, college athletics are growing larger by the minute. College athletics contribute not only to the recognition of colleges and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), it also contributes to the income of colleges and the NCAA. Without student athletes, these colleges and the NCAA would not reap the benefits of college athletics, such as: increased awareness of colleges, higher application rates, and of course the revenue brought in from game and event tickets, apparel, and contracts for licensing and television rights. Since the student athletes, who devote a great deal of time to their sport, are the cog in the machine that is the NCAA and college athletics, they deserve the fair and rightful compensation that they certainly do not currently receive. Here is exactly why student athletes in the NCAA should be compensated for what they do for their colleges, on and off the field of play.

Student athletes in college are held to a higher standard than normal students since they are juggling a lot more in their lives. Student athletes have to set aside a lot of time for practice while still maintaining good grades and a social life. Some people believe that because of this demanding schedule that student athletes should be paid. Where on the other hand many believe that they shouldn’t since they choose to be on a sports team, this is a topic that is debated upon by many. One solution could be to lower the tuition for student athletes since they are offering their talents to the school. As long as the students stay on the team they will get some money off their college tuition every year.

College athletics is a very diverse organization involving a lot of students, mainly as the players, and non-students such as officials, coaches and others. The leading governing body for college athletics is the National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA. College sports is itself a big industry involving sponsorships, TV networks, endorsements, retail products and marketing. But in spite of it being a big business, the players are not compensated for the work they deliver. This opens up two opinions: should players be paid, or should they not? Kristi Dosh’s article, “The Problems With Paying College Athletes”, (UNCLEAR)discusses where the coaches’ money come from to pay student athletes. On the other hand, Mark Cassell’s article, “College Athletes Should Be Able To Negotiate Compensation”, debates how athletes should be able to negotiate their compensation. This paper will evaluate the evidence of both Dosh and Cassell in order to determine which argument is more effective.

One of the hottest debates in the sports industry is if college athletes should be paid. If you want to pay these athletes, how would the college determine the dollar amount that should be paid? Should the basketball team make more than the football team? Should the the soccer team be paid as well? Cheerleading? Chess team? Should everyone on the team get a salary? What if your college is good at football and your basketball team is awful? Rather than thinking about these questions, the college board is just better off not paying athletes like how they did in the old days. For example, “When the National Collegiate Athletic Association was founded by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1905, the institution was devoted to the belief of not providing a salary to the college-athletes who took participated in the organization. It is based on the belief of amateurism, and it was a remarkable idea” (Meshefejian). However, The continuous growth of NCAA causes a huge amount of revenue to come into colleges and this cause controversy to whether if athletes should be paid for what they do. The opinions on this subject can be grouped into two general categories. Some feel that college athletes should not be paid because education comes first and athletes are already paid in full. Others feel that college athletes should be paid because playing a sport is a full-time job and it would make the sport more competitive. Although some