College Athletes Should Get Paid

The hot topic in amateur sports has been as to whether or not college athletes should be paid. The NCAA amateur rule states that an athlete in college sports cannot be paid other than their athletic scholarship. These athletes spend a tremendous amount of time at school practice and then working on schoolwork after practice. The NCAA is an organization that oversees all of the athletes that make up the basic unit of intercollegiate sports. The success of the NCAA whether it’s through the sale of merchandise, game day revenue or NCAA tournaments that each individual sports has, despite the absolute success of these tournaments these athletes receive any monetary compensation .Some of the main reasons why the NCAA lack of payments are that it wants to maintain its amateur status and

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.

For example Josh Huff a former wide receiver at the university of Oregon, states, “it’s ok for the NCAA to make money off my name and likeness, but once I go charge people to get in my party it’s a problem.” COLLEGIATE ATHLETES: THE CONFLICT BETWEEN NCAA AMATEURISM AND A STUDENT ATHLETE'S RIGHT OF PUBLICITY is an article that explains the unfairness in this situation. Because of his displeasure with the non-compensated and amateurism rule, josh began to shed light on the truth of that student athlete’s right are being violated. The NCAA alone makes millions of revenue of the hard work of these student athletes, names and participation in collegiate athletics. While the only thing justifies the decision, keeping them from being paid is that they already are receiving free education as well as college stipend. Looking at the meaning of amateurism and its purpose this article is to back up student athletes and recognize that their work and role in the NCAA is a little deeper than amateur status. Universities are making money of these students hard work and while the names on the team roster are what generate the demand, the ones in the backgrounds get compensated very handsomely. As stated in this article “The NCAA’s purpose is to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body and, by so doing, retain a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports.” But this clear line is already crossed when universities allow their students to become personal sales pitches and promotional puppets. See a lot of schools athletic revenue thrives of the backs of these students, literally using the names of these students and their success to uplift their school

Secondly, there is a major difference between professional sports and college sports. “Students are not professional athletes who are paid salaries and incentives for a career in sports. They are students receiving access to a college education through their participation in sports...student athletes are amateurs who choose to participate in intercollegiate athletics as part of their educational experience, thus maintaining a distinction between student athletes who participate in the collegiate model and professional athletes who are also students” (Mitchell). The collegiate athletes’ incentive is the access to an outstanding education. College athletes playing a college sport is not a career or a profession. “The NCAA plays a critical role in the maintenance of a revered tradition of amateurism in college sports”(Ross). This quote is laudable because

According to the New Yorker says “The N.C.A.A ideal of amateurism in college athletics has come to border on farce. In the highest-revenue sports-football and basketball-the argument in favor of paying players is so searingly obvious as to seem undeniable. These athletes collectively generate tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars annually for their schools.” (New Yorker)

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

No one expects somebody to work two fulltime jobs and not get paid for it. Nobody would think it would be fair to work so hard and not receive any form of compensation. This is exactly what is happening to student athletes. Student athletes are not only fulltime students, but also are fulltime athletes. There are two very decisive sides to this argument. On one side the NCAA claims that the student athletes are amateurs and cannot be paid. They also claim they are paid in other ways such as a full ride scholarship to a top level education. The other side of the argument states that the work load of a fulltime student and a fulltime athlete is almost unmanageable and the NCAA is making millions off of their work and sweat. This is an issue

A question that has been rising to the surface lately is “should college athletes be paid a salary?” One cannot get on the internet now a day and not see some kind of college sport headline. The world of college sports has been changed greatly the past decade due to college athletes. These athletes make insurmountable amounts of money and an unbelievable amount of recognition for the universities. The athletes that provide and make a ton of revenue for the colleges also spend a huge amount of their time practicing and staying committed to sports, and have to maintain good grades in school which requires quite a bit of overtime. Because college athletes generate massive amounts of revenue and put in massive amounts of personal time for

This is backed up by the fact that many athletes themselves deny that they were or are “exploited” in college (40). More importantly, college athletes receive an expensive education which, for scholarship players, is free. They also get perks, including preferential treatment from some professors who may tell athletes “just show up in class and you’ll get a ‘C’ grade.”

College athletes generate millions of dollars for their schools each year, yet they are not allowed to be compensated beyond a scholarship due to being considered amateurs. College athletes are some of the hardest working people in the nation, having to focus on both school courses and sports. Because athletics take so much time, these student-athletes are always busy. College football and basketball are multi-billion dollar businesses. The NCAA does not want to pay the athletes beyond scholarships, and it would be tough to work a new compensation program into the NCAA and university budgets. College athletes should be compensated in some form because they put in so much time and effort, generating huge amounts of revenue.

One of the most controversial subjects we as individuals hear about this day in age is whether or not college athletes deserve to be paid. Many people argue that these athletes do intact, deserve to be paid for their time and hard work. NCAA athletes create a name for themselves by playing and performing well on their college teams. The better these athletes perform, the more publicity the school revives. This then leads to higher ticket sales and stores around campus selling jerseys and other clothing items with athletes names and numbers on the back. NCAA schools have become comfortable with using athletes’ names to bring in a revenue for the school, and yet the athletes never see any of that money. On the other hand, many people believe that these athletes do not deserve, nor should they expect to receive payment in return. They believe that these scholarships and the education are payment in itself. Some even bring up the question on if it is affordable or even realistic to pay college athletes.

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

Division I college athletics have come a very long way since its original erection in the late 1800s as only something that occurred at the Ivy Leagues. Today, there is now a side which advocates for paid compensations for college athletes (this is mostly focused in football and basketball). According to the NCAA 's current policy on intercollegiate compensation the athlete first must be considered an amateur. This rule that is in place is extremely redundant because in order for a student to be eligible to be an NCAA student athlete they have to be considered an amateur. This means that, basically as of right now, there is no strongly enforcing rule that is in place to determine whether or not athletes should be paid. The world of college sports has grown rapidly over the past few decades with new television broadcasting contracts, video games, and overall popularity; making it a legitimate broadcasting rival to pro sports leagues such as the NFL or NBA. The reason why college sports have become so popular is due to the increased demand for television games which stems from the excitement of the teams playing. College sports are what they are today because of the players who have become increasingly more exciting to watch. Under normal circumstances, one would be in agreement with the notion of paying a student athlete that is on a team bringing in money from broadcasted and sold out games as a form of compensation. I am on the opposite side of this argument. The

During the past couple years , all college sports have gained a lot of fans in the country. Weather it is football, baseball or basketball ever since the NFL lost some popularity, college sports have racked in an intense amount of money in their college Universities, some may even say they amped up the amount of popularity the College’s received from the public. For instance a study that was carried out by the Orland Sentientnel, it says it estimated the University of Texas long horns Program received the highest revenueof any college with $240,134,862. Even with an large anount of money on there hands, athletes that play in college arent compensates at all for the hard work they put in. When it comes down to the rules of the NCAA it says