Why College Athletes Should NOT be Paid

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

Joe Posnanski, a sports journalist and former columnist for Sports Illustrated, weighed in on the controversial issue of college athletes receiving money as a service of their play. “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid” published 2011 from the Norton Sampler starts off by introducing one of his main arguments that “College athletics are not about the players” (Posnanski 585) but instead are about the alumni and the colleges themselves that people support. If player on a team left and made their own team would that colleges alumni now support their semi-pro team, no chance. College Supporters love the youthful feeling and the how close they feel too it. He shows how big time college athletes do get paid in tuition, room and board, food,

Jameis Winston, Dwayne Wade, Giancarlo Stanton, and Dalvin Cook all are very big people in Florida’s sports market. They all are important to their team’s success and considered leaders on their teams. The major difference between the four players is that 3 of them are compensated for their work, but on the other hand, one which is a college student receiving a free education, isn’t paid for nearly doing the same kind of work. Many people would argue that it’s not fair that college athletes aren’t being paid for bringing in millions of dollars to the institution they play for, putting their lives in danger to play the sports, and missing tons of class to prepare for their sports games without being paid. Those who argue against the compensation of athletes would say that most college and universities don’t make nearly enough revenue to pay all the college athletes as well as saying college athletes already receive a free education with scholarships and that should be the real reason to be in college. This issue has been a debate for many years among players, the National Collegiate Athletic Association & even outside influences like celebrities and law officials.

College sports has become extremely popular over the past few years. With the March Madness tournament held in March and the new College Football Playoff held in January, the NCAA has achieved a great deal of attention and high television ratings. Although colleges make tons of money off of their athletes, college athletes receive plenty of compensation. Paying student athletes would cross the line between professionalism and amateurism and would violate the essence of being a student athlete.

What amount of money should college athletes be paid? This has been a controversial question for many years.Some lower level Division One NCAA athletes think that their scholarships do not pay them enough as it is, and instead they want cash rather than the scholarship. These situations have been taken to court and arbitrated in NCAA hearings. The NCAA, or the National College Athletics Association, has declined for the athletes to be paid a salary every time when they surmise that they should. There are so many reasons why the NCAA has declined for these athletes to be paid and have proven to be naive. The NCAA should not be conciliatory on

College athletes are fun and exciting to watch each and every time we watch them. The only problem with college athletes are that they are not getting paid like they should be. Athletes give it their all each and every time they go out on the court or the field. The NCAA makes billions of dollars each and every year from championship games or the NCAA March Madness, but none of that money is sent to the players. College athletes have the right to be paid by the NCAA and the universities because they represent the product that both are selling.

With the universities pulling in more than twelve billion dollars, the rate of growth for college athletics surpasses companies like McDonalds and Chevron (Finkel, 2013). The athletes claim they are making all the money, but do not see a dime of this revenue. The age-old notion that the collegiate athletes are amateurs and students, binds them into not being paid by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). This pay for play discussion has been talked about since the early 1900s but recently large steps are being made to actually make a change. There are many perspectives on the payment of collegiate student athletes coming from the NCAA, the athletes themselves, and the university officials.

College athletics are becoming more like the professional leagues except for one big issue, money. Student athletes bring in a vast amount of revenue for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) not to mention recognition and notoriety regarding the athlete’s university. However, the debate continues as to whether student athletes should or should not receive payment for playing college sports.

After numerous scandals over the past several years of college athletes receiving improper benefits, the question has come up whether or not college athletes should be paid or not. College sports are a growing industry, and we have seen money destroy organizations, teams, and players in this industry.  The determination and motivation of college athletes supersedes professional athletes by their will to win; therefore, college athletes should not be paid.

Most people don’t know that college athletes are already getting paid in different ways than just direct money. "A student athlete at a major conference school on a full scholarship is likely receiving a package of education, room, board, and coaching/training worth between $50,000 and $125,000 per year depending on their sport and whether they attend public or private university"(Dorfman). These athletes get training and coaching for free that professionals pay $2,000-$3,000 per week for. They also receive free schooling if they received scholarships from the school. They can also have free room which means the athletes don’t have to pay for their houses. The average college student pays $20,000 in tuition that these athletes get

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

Most student-athletes playing a sport in college are there on an athletic scholarship. The scholarship is granted to them by their respective schools and is worth anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000. According to Edelman, the football program alone at University of Alabama brought in roughly 143.3 million dollars of revenue. In perspective, that’s about 2 million per player. Even though Alabama is an elite program and brings in more than the average football program, the NCAA brought in nearly $845 billion in 2011 per Sonny. Now it is obvious there many ways a university brings in revenue, but it is safe to say that a player is worth more than that $100,000 scholarship. In fact, a substantial share of college sports’ revenues stay in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches. Now think about what college athletics would be without the world class athletes it has today, or without any athletes at all. If a school didn’t “award” athletes these scholarships, there would be

As of today, there are over 460,000 NCAA student-athletes that compete in 24 different sports while in college throughout the United States (NCAA). Over the past couple decades, the argument for paying these college athletes has gained steam and is a hot topic in the sports community. However, paying these college athletes is not feasible because most universities do not generate enough revenue to provide them with a salary and some even lose money from the sports programs. These collegiate student-athletes are amateurs and paying them would ruin the meaning of college athletics. Also, playing college sports is a choice and a privilege with no mention or guarantee of a salary besides a full-ride scholarship. Although some argue that

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