Should College Athletes Be Paid

With college basketball and football originating in the 1800’s, the game has had much time to adapt. Over the years, the sports have become more and more popular, gaining a bigger fan base, which has resulted in substantial profits from the sale of merchandise representing the teams and players. There is one thing that has not changed; all of the athletes are still not being paid. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, or NCAA, is an organization that regulates most aspects of

More and more it’s discussed daily on whether if college athletes should finally be paid, or remain unpaid, this topic is very important because college sports are very popular in the United States. College athletes should remain unpaid because it wouldn’t be fair to the other less watch sports that don’t bring in a lot of revenue, it wouldn’t be fair to the female athletes they wouldn’t be paid equally, college athletes already have advantages and receive benefits, and paying the athletes would only benefit the big named universities and not the smaller schools. College athletes were all recruited out of high school to play a sport for a university of their choosing, if the athletes were good enough they would receive a scholarship, that comes with a free education, free housing, and a free meal plan. A discussed topic is should college athletes be paid because of all the hard work and revenue that they bring towards their universities, or should they remain unpaid because they are already receiving enough. In the article “Pay to play: should college athletes be paid?” Many get scholarships, which help pay for their tuition, supplies, housing, and sporting equipment. According to the NCAA, college athletes often receive grants worth more than $100,000”. (Birkenses & Bagaria Par. 8) A free education is already enough, college athletes get to go to school for free just because of their athletic abilities, which also

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).

College athletes have done a lot of hard work trying to go pro, but now it is time to think about what the NCAA should do to reward these athletes. For the past few years, people have been trying to figure out whether the NCAA should pay their athletes for their hard work. The NCAA should reward the athletes’ hard work by paying them because most of the money that the schools make come from the athletes; second, the athletes’ names and their bodies are being used commercially in video games and ads which has nothing to do with their education; and lastly, most college athletes do not become professional athletes and they have little prospect of having a successful professional career aside from sports.

In the course of recent decades, school sports have increased enormous ubiquity over the United States. Whether it be football, ball, or hockey, since the time that the turn of the century, intercollegiate games have acquired an overflow of income to their separate Universities, and in addition expanding the fame of the College 's notoriety. For instance, in a study directed by the Orlando Sentinel, it was assessed that the University of Texas ' Athletic Program had the most elevated income of whatever other University at $120,288,370 (How Much Revenue). Yet with this vast total of cash, no school competitors are lawfully adjusted for their work. As per NCAA rules, "You are not qualified for interest in a game on the off chance that you have ever: Taken pay, or the guarantee of pay, for contending in that game" (NCAA Regulations 1). Because of this law, not just are school competitors experiencing issues in paying off their school educational cost, additionally numerous competitors are being paid under the table through illegal businesses. These novice competitors have no motivation to stay in school and complete their particular degrees, the same number of can 't stand to pay for the undeniably costly school experience. While numerous contend that school competitors shouldn 't be paid as they are just novices speaking to their schools, I contend that competitors must be paid to

The argument of whether or not the NCAA should pay its athletes has been debated for around 8 years now, and right when it seems like there may be a breakthrough another reason comes up for the issue to be put on hold. College athletic programs are multimillion dollar programs and the athletes who make this revenue possible are getting the bare minimum to make it by in these college programs. Last year the Texas A&M athletic program was at the top of the NCAA revenue list bringing in $192,608,876. A third of that revenue comes from ticket sales alone, which leaves the rest to television rights, licensing and other donations. In the NCAA there are 26 colleges which are bringing in over 100 million dollars in NCAA revenue (USA Today 1). But still, Horace claims that “there is a misconception that athletic programs in general are profitable and are making hand-over fist. While truly most operate at a cost to the institution”.

NCAA stands for National Collegiate Athletic Association. It’s a non-profit association that regulates and organize athletes of 1,281 institutions; conferences; organizations; and individuals. They were founded in 1906 by Theodore Roosevelt after threatening to get rid of football if things weren’t changed to make things fair. President Roosevelt’s dream still hasn’t come true because coaches, administrators and athletic directors get paid millions of dollars to coach and be mentors to these players. But the players don’t get a small piece of the it, even if they work more hours than than the average American worker, miss numerous amounts of classes because of required tournaments, give fake or independent classes so that their gpa high enough for them eligible to play, and sometimes leave college

Should we pay college athletes? That is a big topic in NCAA sports right now. People think that college athletes work hard and that they deserve to get paid. Michael Wilbon is one of these people. At first he was against paying college athletes, but now he is all for it. He says that he is interested in seeing the people that make revenue share a little piece of it. Then you have people like a reporter from the Daily Evergreen. He is against paying the athletes. He states that when you are a student athlete it is student first and athlete second, and that if you start paying college athletes it will put being an athlete first. I strongly think that

Many college athletes have trouble with their money throughout their college lives. One of the main reasons that colleges don’t want to pay their athletes is because they think that they won’t use the money efficiently. “The debate over paying college athletes ignores the fact that they are already paid. The real question is, should they be paid more?” (Sack).

The college athletes succeed at such a high level, they should be rewarded for their duties. Jeffrey Dorfman, senior writer for Forbes, is one of those on the fine line of wanting to pay the athletes, but at the same time not wanting to pay them. He states “ Student athletes on scholarships are already essentially paid.” He believes that student athletes are getting paid with the scholarship they get, but seeing them rewarded for their hard work would be even better. Scholarships grant student athletes with a place to live, food to eat, a school for education, and all the other essentials. What about that not on scholarship? They do not get the same benefits as those on one. One against paying college athletes is Andrew Sharp, a senior writer for Grantland states “Every Action has Consequences. Someone should explain to college athletes and all the media members out here throwing them a pity party” (Sharp). Although a harsh argument, Sharp failed to realize that for some athletes, scholarships are not paid in full, so they do not get all the benefits. The doubters of he paying college athletes case to re consider their view on this

“It’s down to seven seconds. You see the time…Whittenburg…. Oh it’s a long ways, Oh he’s there! They won it…on a dunk!” Billy Packer said this when covering the historical run by the NC State Wolfpack to win the Division 1 NCAA tournament in a dramatic fashion. A team with no chance of making the tournament, let alone winning the championship, does the impossible and wins the NCAA Division 1 championship. Despite NC State being a smaller school compared to the big basketball powerhouses like Virginia, UNC, Houston and many others, they had players work and will their way to the finish line. If players were paid, you wouldn’t see players like Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, or Ralph Sampson on different teams. It would be the college with the most money, could pay the best student-athletes, the most money and Cinderella stories for the most part would disappear. Dynasties of college sports would be made. Money would ruin college sports more than it already has. It has already stripped championships, ruined players images and futures, and tarnished reputations of colleges. The Fab 5, the near “3-Pete” for Oklahoma University, and the USC Trojans football team scandal, are just a few instances where college sports were affected wrongly by the idea of “play for pay.” Colleges and Universities should not pay students to participate in college sports because of all the benefits the athletes receive, the fact that the colleges wouldn’t be able to pay for other

In the sports world you hear the question, should college athletes really get paid? If you read the articles by sports writers, for ESPN and Fox Sports, you hear both sides of the story. One person at ESPN, Michael Wilbon, believes that college athletes deserve to get paid, and here is his reason why “We’re talking $11 billion for three weekends of television per year. On top of that there’s a four-year contract with ESPN that pays the BCS* $500 million, and combined that’s $10 billion, would the games not be televised?” “As Jon Solomon, from CBS Sports pointed out, the NCAA* went to court to settle the debate, should college athletes, in football and basketball, get paid for their image, names and likeliness?”.

We are all aware of the common misconception that college athletes should be paid. However, I believe that college athletes that not only should they not be paid but are undeserving of being paid. There are many things to consider and take into account when mentioning compensation and college athletes. The truth is, paying colleges athletes leads to a number of internal and external conflicts that could easily be avoided.

The actions of the NCAA and their treatment of student-athletes has long been a major issue. The world of college sports is a multi-billion dollar enterprise built on the backs of its unpaid amateur “student- athletes”. The evolution of sponsorship and media rights deals are worth fortunes, for which the players receive nothing, except for their degree.

The NCAA is a non-profit organization that organizes and executes college sports, which includes football, basketball, etc. Key word from the previous sentence would be “non-profit organization”. What kind of “non-profit organization” makes as much money as they do? The NCAA players bring in great revenue with their outstanding efforts in bringing their team up to the top, because that is what the fans like to watch. Now does it seem fair that the NCAA does not give the players back any money at all to the players that actually bring the money in? In simple terms the NCAA makes large amounts of profits and needs to start distributing some of the money to the players (History of College Basketball, 2013). According to another article, the