College Athletes Should Be Paid

When people hear of college athletics, all they think of is a game. Most people do not realize that there is a million dollar industry going on around these athletes. Eric He, a sports fanatic who writes for the Daily Trojan, states, “The NCAA is a nonprofit, tax exempt organization that just happens to be a billion-dollar industry, raking in $740 million per year from March Madness alone” (par. 7). When the NCAA is generating that much money, how can it not go to the players? It is not the

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

Another reason the athletes should receive pay is because, they never really had had financial experience before they enter professional sports. If schools were to begin paying players, they could help the students deal with this situation. This would allow them to be experienced, these students to financial investors who had their best interests in mind. Whether or not these college athletes went on to play professionally, they would at least have some type of financial literacy to carry with them into whatever path they choose. This would set them up a better financial

The NCAA feels the athletes should not be paid. Horace Mitchell from the NCAA Board of Directors states

Collegiate athletes lay it all on the line when they compete. Just like their professional counterparts, they play the game with heart and soul. Why, then, are they not given monetary compensation in return for all the blood, sweat and tears they shed for their school? According to “Let’s start paying college athletes” by Joe Nocera of The New York Times, the 15 highest-paid NCAA football coaches made $53.4 million; meanwhile, the 13,877 Division I players made $0

College athletes spend numerous hours every week playing games during their season and working to strengthen their athletic abilities. With long hours of practice, exercising, and games, it can make managing school work and their sport difficult to handle. According to Rodney K. Smith, author of “A Brief History of the National Collegiate Athletic Association 's Role in Regulating Intercollegiate Athletics” in the Marquette Sports Law Review, “In 1905 alone, there were over eighteen deaths and one hundred major injuries in intercollegiate football (Vol 11:9).” With a history of an abundant amount of players getting injured while playing, the discussion of paying college athletes was debated between different colleges. The issue of whether or not to pay college athletes was recently brought to attention in the public eye. In 2013, Johnny Manziel held up his Heisman trophy on the cover of Time Magazine and stated, “It’s time to pay college athletes” (ESPN).

Although college players don't get paid I contend they should because sometimes full ride scholarships to college are not enough they should get paid for playing as well because they work more than the average american a week, entertaining the fans and doing the hard work. The NCAA makes a lot of money from their collegiate sports. Yet college players don’t get paid and they are the ones playing the sport and entering the fans. This is unfair to the players. This why college players should get paid and the NCAA should pay them.

Everyone except the “student-athletes” have their hands in the money pot. Yet “The whole structure depends on the players’ willingness to perform what is effectively volunteer work. The NCAA President Mark Emmert grossed $1.8 million in 2013. During the season Mike Krzyzewski,The Duke University head coach makes $193,640 a week. There is no way Nick Saban (Alabama University head football coach) should make 160 times more than the average Tuscaloosa public school

Asking wether to pay college athletes or not is one of the most heated debates in NCAA history. Although it may sound good to the students, it will arise devastating effects on society. The discrimination that might occur if we decide to pay athletes could initiate public riots or violence. The idea of college athletes being paid should be put to rest based on the consequences that would arise (Bokshan).

Do you know that only 1.6% of college football players make it to the NFL? Less than 1% make it to the NBA, and only 10.5% make it to the MBL. All of these athletes could be enjoying their weekends at home, they don’t have time for a job to make extra money, and they miss family holidays and events for games. College athletes should get paid.

I have decided to research whether a collegiate athlete should be compensated for perform for his or her respective college or university. It is a highly controversial topic within my field of study because of the different views athletic authorities, administrators, athletes, alumni and future graduates have on the subject. According to "Pay to Play: Should College Athletes be Paid?", collegiate student-athletes may spend more than 40 hours a week practicing, leaving little time to keep up with academic commitments (Birkenes 4-5). Majority of their time is spent on the field or hard wood, making

College athletes should not be paid. “ They argue that the main purpose of going to college is to get a education, not to make money” (“Should college”...1). College is not a job, it is a place to learn. Also many college athletes receive scholarships to attend that school. “The value of the scholarships athletes receive during four years of college can be well over $250,000” (Weiss et al.1). Therefore, athletes

            If college students are spending their time playing these sports and not working, they should be getting paid for it. Not only are these students forfeiting their time to study, talk to friends, and even relax after classes, but they are missing an opportunity to have jobs. “Players’ relationships to the school they play for should be spelled out in an individualized pay-for-service contract rather than an NCAA-standardized letter of intent that impinges on basic freedoms” (Marx, 475). The NCAA requires that students are enrolled full time and play football to gain the scholarship offered. There is an argument by Hartenstine on this subject that “Some 15 percent played professional football as a first career, but 15 percent were corporate executives, 13