Republican Pros And Cons

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

Actions towards paying athletes are being taken and according to the TCU Daily Skiff, “There’s a legislation being passed around in the Big 12 states to provide athletes with an extra stipend in addition to their all-expenses paid education. The idea is that these students are producing truckloads of revenue for the university and should see some of the fruits of their labor.” (Jennings, par. 2) Because athletes aren’t paid for producing such money, supporters feel some of the money made should go towards helping with extra expenses. An average student athlete has to pay for phone bills, transportation, entertainment, laundry, toiletries and other things. While the typical college student has the opportunity to work, athletes don’t. Some students in college receive academic full ride scholarships, which are the same as athletic full rides, but they have time to earn extra money on the side. If these students are receiving a full ride scholarship and have the opportunity to work then an athlete should be paid a compensation for his or her efforts on the playing field.

If the student-athletes are paid a salary, in addition to receiving a scholarship, which includes, tuition, books, housing and meals, it would be grossly unfair to non-student-athletes because tuition costs would be increased dramatically and ultimately be unattainable for the non-student-athlete. Without reasonable tuition costs, less students will attend and in turn this loss of

The debate on whether college athletes should be paid to play is a sensitive controversy, with strong support on both sides. College athletics have been around for a long time and always been worth a good amount of money. This billion dollar industry continues to grow in popularity and net worth, while they continue to see more and more money come in. The student-athletes who they are making the money off of see absolutely none of this income. It is time that the student-athletes start to see some of this income he or she may by helping bring the National Collegiate Athletic Association. There are many people who do not think this is in the best interest of the student-athletes or Universities, but that being said there are also many

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.

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.

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.

If college athletes were to start being paid, many questions would start to surface. The big question that would pop up first is, “What sports get paid?” Statistics show that football and basketball are the major revenue sports that actually make money for their universities, while most other college sports do not. While football brings in on average the most revenue, basketball is close to second. Another question that may be asked is, “How will the money be split?” Like many others, the writer believes that the biggest question lies in which areas of competition would get paid. Famous Fab Five member Jalen Rose states that, “Every student athlete should be paid $2000 a year” (Salvador). However, if you do that, in fairness, would one pay a star football player and a star rowing team member the same amount of money? Or would a woman athlete get paid just as much as a male athlete? If this not the case then it becomes extremely unfair and would just cause controversy. Fairness is important when coming to this, especially the fairness between females and males. There are several different questions that need to be reviewed and that proves why college athletes should not be paid. It would cause absolute chaos and a plethora

The question of whether or not college athletes should get paid is of heated debate in todays times. While many believe that student athletes are entitled to income, It remains undougtibly a concern of moral interest to universities across the country. This paper is going to explain the pros and cons that come with allowing student athletes the right to receive a salary.

Have you paid attention to all of the news that has been surfacing about collegiate sports lately? It is a big topic now days in the world of sports on weather college athletes should be getting paid to play sports. College athletics have gained great popularity of the past few decades, and have brought schools lots of revenue. A lot of college athletes think they should be getting paid for their services they do for their school. College sports like basketball and football generate over six billion dollars a year, but none of it goes to the athletes. Athletes should be paid for all of the time and dedication they put forth to their sport and the effort they put towards school to be eligible to play, athletes should get paid for all the money they bring to their school by playing sports, and players should also be paid for putting their bodies on the line while playing sports.

Democrats do not believe that everyone should be treated equally. They think that the wealthy should be taxed more than a minimum wage or poor person.

A Republican is a person who is involved with or supports the Republican Party. They support the ideals that the party holds in its party platform. Their party platform includes restoring the American Dream, reforming the Federal government, renewing American values, and abiding by the Constitution to fix the country. Some party planks include cutting government spending, making a Federal-State partnership to create jobs, reform the tax code, and organizing space missions and programs. A Republican is usually more conservative, which means that they most likely disapprove gun control, oppose abortion, and disagree with same-sex marriage.

They also go back the Supreme Court case in 1984, which said the athletes must be students. One of the biggest concerns is that this side has is that paying college athletes will destroy college sports as a whole (Issues 12). They are worried that by paying athletes that the college will no longer care about the student’s education, but rather on how they are performing in games (Issues 14). Sports columnist like Jon Saraceno believe that paying athletes in the football and basketball programs would destroy the low budget sports that don’t generate as much money such as volleyball and tennis. A compelling argument given is that the wealthy schools of the NCAA would be able to outbid other schools for the top talent and give them an unfair athletic advantage (Griffin 13).

It is an age old debate on whether a college athlete should be paid. It is a high school student 's dream to play sports at the collegiate level. Many people question why the NCAA, coaches, and administrators are allowed to earn large amounts of money while the student athlete’s hard work and efforts are limited to a scholarship. Others feel that is should be considered a privilege that a college athlete can earn a college degree while enjoying what they love, by playing collegiate sports. Student athletes should not receive payment because they are already receiving payment in the form of an expensive athletic scholarship and are also able to receive the new cost of attendance stipend to assist with further financial burdens.