Negatives Of Paying College Athletes

College sports are a phenomenon that keeps viewers coming back for more. Stated in an article on Money Nation the NCAA makes an estimated $1 billion per year and this number is still growing. What really is insane is that all that money is made off of college athletes, who don’t get a penny from that total number. The debate on whether or not college athletes should be paid has been around for decades and probably will still be here for years to come. Paying college athletes would make the teams unfair, change how hard players will work to get better, affect the amateurism of college sports, and lastly influence the athlete's willingness to participate in college sports.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) makes roughly $1 billion in income annually and the athletes do not receive any of it. This topic has been debated for many years and is still being debated. The debate dates back to the 1980s and now athletes are demanding that they deserve to be paid since profits are made off of them. Some athletes such as former and current basketball and football players came together with lawsuits to federal courts asking for rewards from profits NCAA makes gets of them. Research has opened several different opinions on this matter. There are many pros and cons for paying college athletes. College sports provide a huge source of the university’s income. The athletes, however, receive their scholarship

College athletes are undoubtedly some of the hardest working people in the world. Not only are they living the life of an average student, they also have a strenuous schedule with their specific sport. One of the most discussed topics in the world of college athletics is whether or not student-athletes should be paid money for playing sports. The people who disagree with the idea have some good arguments to make. Primarily that the athletes get to go to school for free for playing sports. Another argument is that if student-athletes were to get paid then it would ruin the amateurism of college sports. People who are against paying the athletes do not want to see the young people become focused on money. “Paying student-athletes

“There’s far more that goes into being a professional athlete than being a college athlete. So many differences that people don’t realize. It’s not just about playing football and getting paid to do it. There’s a lot of things you have to deal with.” This quote was said by Robert Griffin, who is an American football quarterback that was drafted in 2012 to the Washington Redskins in the NFL draft. This man is explaining how there is a reason that professional athletes are paid. They are paid because they must deal with other things that college athletes don’t have to deal with and because they made it to the pros. Students should be against college athletes being paid because it is illegal, they aren’t at the professional level of play, and it would tear about the bond they have with their teammates. Not a lot of people can say that they did that and for college athletes to be complaining and taking money under the table is so wrong. You’re in college and your nothing compared to those guys. I don’t care if you’re the best in the NCAA, there is absolutely no reason you should be making money while in college. Most of these guys have full scholarships so there that’s your motivation to play.

Every year, thousands of student athletes across the world sign the NCAA’s 08-3A Form, also called the “Student-Athlete” form, which waives their right to receive money for the use of their name and image. Like many of us in this class, these college athletes devote their time to their academics while spending additional hours with training and practices throughout the day and receive no stipend in return. This 08-3A form defines college athletes as amateurs, who cannot receive payment for playing their desired sport. While their schools and coaches may make millions of dollars in salaries and endorsement deals and are the highest-paid public employees in many states due to their performances in their desired sport, these “amateurs” can never

Whether or not student-athletes should be paid has been a hotly debated topic since the 1900s. College athletes spend just as much time, if not more time, practicing and devoting time and energy to sports as they do academics. For this, many athletes are rewarded with scholarship money. However, many people believe it is not enough. Should we pay student-athletes a slice of the wealth or is a full-ride scholarship enough? (Business Insider). What if the athlete gets injured? Where does the money come out of to support each athlete’s salary? The huge amount of money being generated from college sports has led some people to think that the athletes are entitled to some of that revenue. While, some think that student-athletes should be paid, others disagree for various reasons.

“Here’s Why We Shouldn’t Pay College Athletes” written by John R. Thelin, illustrates how collegiate players should be prohibited from earning any funds from universities or private agents because they already receive a great amount of grants and scholarships based on their ability in a certain field. The author touches on the scholarship model vs the salary model, he leans slightly towards the scholarship model by using the example of how taxes play into the situation if a player captures a salary. Also Thelin states that student athletes should have something to look forward to in the professional leagues, a large income does just the trick. Furthermore, the reaction I had when I read John Thelin’s statements included that he is one hundred percent spot on with his perception that participants in college activities are already getting their schooling for free. As well as the idea that these

A topic that is very controversial for everyone is, should student-athletes in college be compensated? There numerous evidence that supports in favor and many against the proposition of paying student- athletes who play sports for their university. As a college athlete, students are putting their bodies on the line each game they play. There’s possibility of suffering a traumatic brain injury or being paralyze after physical contact. These athletes are sacrificing their bodies and physical health at an opportunity to play a game which they love, and hopefully play it in the professional level. While that’s taking place, college football and basketball are big business that keep expanding. College sports bring in a large amount of revenues. The result is that many of them fail to graduate. Paying college athletes would not ruin amateur sport because even though most college athletes do get scholarship and should focus on their education it doesn’t help them if most of the time they are not attending classes to be in practice or games. College sports do make a high-income and athletes deserve a portion of the revenue they bring their programs.

Remy, D. (2012). Why the New York Times ' Nocera is wrong. NCAA News, 5.

The argument of paying college athletes outside of the scholarships they may be receiving is becoming a rather popular topic. “Should College Athletes Be Paid?”, an article in Santa Clara Law written by Ron Katz, Isac Vaughn and Mike Gilleran weighs both sides of paying student athletes. They argue the point that regardless how you look at the situation, a handful of college sports have become a business. Sports such as Men’s football and basketball being broadcast on television now generate approximately $750 per year for colleges. It is acknowledged that the ones who are bringing in this money (the student athletes) are not receiving revenue from the sport they are playing. The idea of treating all sports the same was possible back in the day but today you cannot deny that one sport may bring in much more than another. Therefore Gilleran et. al. concludes that each school should be able to choose if they want to start using the business idea and paying the athletes for their work. “Alabama head coach, Nick Saban’s contract extension calls for him to make $45 million over the next eight years. His players, on the other hand, receive only the NCAA scholarships that does not even cover their basic living expenses.” (Gilleran et. al. par. 27) How is it that

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.

The debate about college athletes getting paid has divided people into different opinions on this topic. College athletics has become extremely popular and has turned into a job for many students. Playing a sport in college can make the players more likely to go to the pros. However it could also be a bad thing because the player could be likely to be injured while playing in the sport and ruining their whole career. The articles “College Athletes getting paid?” by Tiffany Patterson (2017), “Should college athletes be paid”by ??? (2017), “A way to start paying college athletes” by Joe Nocera (2016), Hearing held on bid to form first college athlete union. By associated press (2014) discusses the debate about college athletes getting paid it centers around scholarships, money made off of college sports and playing the sport is like having a job.

Athletes attending universities across the country spend long hours at their sport everyday, some spending hours equivalent to a full time job. The majority of athletes use their talents in order to receive their education for free or for a reduced fee. However, some college competitors use their time at a university as a vehicle to play professionally as a career. With the NCAA and university athletic departments making billions of dollars in revenue each year, a question has arisen. Should college athletes receive compensation for their play?

Here are some cons on if college athletes do get paid. College athletes already get paid quite a bit of money by scholarships alone that pay for the schooling and where they live. The athletes pretty much get paid for playing on the team but the money goes to school payments and other things. If they did get paid then other students would probably say something about it. Even if a student ,who doesn’t play sports but still has a full ride scholarship for academics, doesn’t get paid for going there and doing these things for the college then they might get mad and protest or even go to a different school. College athletes getting paid simply detracts the purity of the game. This shows that some fans won’t go because if they didn’t get paid then

Of the nearly 8 million students currently participating in high school athletics in the United States, only 480,000 of them will compete at NCAA schools (NCAA). Playing a college sport is the gateway to build up to competing at the highest level. Even playing for a full-time job. As of today, the official NCAA rules state that no salary is allowed for participating in athletics and benefits from an agent or prospective agent is not permitted. The real question is, since the system of not paying college athletes has been in place and not to mention, has worked very efficiently, why would it have to change now?