Paying College athletes has been a trending topic around the National Collegiate Athletic Association over the years. Many have strong opinions about this topic, and the opinions vary. The discussion of paying college athletes began in 1991 when the famed Fab Five became a household name in the United States. The Fab Five is arguably the greatest recruiting class of all time; all attending the same school (Baxter). The Fab Five first created controversy when they started to question why the university and university officials were making millions and millions of dollars off their names, and they were just deprived hungry college kids not making a dime. Nike even made billions by copyrighting their famed black athletic socks, black …show more content…
“The best argument against paying players is that it diminishes the value of an education” (Baxter). 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
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.
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.
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.
If the NCAA decided to pay college athletes, it would create more problems than solutions. For example, if student-athletes are offered a salary, most likely the cost of school tuition will go up because the money paid to the student-athletes must come from somewhere and the revenue from sporting events and memorabilia will not be enough to cover all student-athlete salaries as well as expenses to run all the college’s sports programs. In addition, not all college sports draw the same fan base and therefore, income is greatly varied between sports programs which in turn will create an unfair balance when determining the salary for each student-athlete. All student-athletes regardless of which sport they are participating would expect equal pay.
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.
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.
Jackson continues to say that big time college athletics is a business and there is nothing wrong with making money in a business. He later explains that “Every student who signs a letter of intent or agrees to accept a scholarship to play a sport knows going in that the school's job is to make the most money off of his or her efforts. They agree to that. It's no different than a professional athlete signing a contract” (Jackson 1). This source will be utilized to further explain the foreseeable issues in paying athletes a salary. Also to express that college athletics is far closer to a business than we
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
Although college players don't get paid I contend they should because sometimes full ride scholarships to college are not enough they should get paid for playing as well because they work more than the average american a week, entertaining the fans and doing the hard work. The NCAA makes a lot of money from their collegiate sports. Yet college players don’t get paid and they are the ones playing the sport and entering the fans. This is unfair to the players. This why college players should get paid and the NCAA should pay them.
During the selling of NCAA Football games by EA sports, some schools made up to $140K a year while the players received nothing. Other events, such as the FBI crackdown of college staff members paying high school athletes to commit to the college they’re apart of, as well as the release of LaMelo Ball’s signature shoe (which led to him signing to a Lithuanian team in fear of his NCAA eligibility being revoked due to him receiving money from the shoe) has only mounted to the importance of the debate of whether college athletes should be paid or not. Combined with suggestions from former college athletes, ruined dreams due to injuries, to players losing NCAA eligibility, it is clear to me that they should stop being overly restricted and
Do you enjoy watching a good game of college football on saturday afternoons? How would you feel if college sports turned into a business similar to the NFL or NBA? That is exactly what would happen if college athletes began to be paid for their talents. There are many other reasons college athletes should not be paid, for example, college athletes already receive compensation in the form of scholarships, each athlete could not be paid the same, and athletes should be focusing on school, not athletics.
Does it make sense for colleges to run a multimillion dollar entertainment business? The idea of paying college athletes has increased in popularity in recent years. People believe that the athletes should get compensated for their time and money they make for their schools. It may seem like a legitimate argument, but paying college athletes are not why schools are built. Instead, colleges should focus more on educating students and athletes.
about getting a part time job. So they would have more time working on their sport and would have energy for classes. The athletes would not have to worry where they would get their money if the NCAA paid its athletes. If the athletes do not have to worry where they are going to get their money from, then could could spend more time perfecting their game and would also help them have more energy to do well in their classes too (“Top 10 Reasons College…”). These would also lead them to be more competitive towards whatever sport they are playing because they have more energy to work for it. When someone have been working all day one something, they usually tired right? Well this is the exact scenario for college athletes every single day. The
Not paying college athletes is by far the right decision. This has been largely debated for years and both hold valid arguments for each side. The majority of the people who want to see them get paid are the players and those on the other side of the argument are those who are not involved in the sport. The reason they should not be paid is the money will ruin the game if it gets involved. It is highly likely players will focus more about money than winning and could easily be distracted.
In the last few decades a crucial question raised around collegiate athletics and the student athletes who compete within the NCAA. Some argue that college athletes should be paid because of how valuable they are to their school, and because of how hard they work to manage both their sport and school work. However, others believe college athletes don’t deserve payment because of the many benefits they already receive due to playing sports. Therefore, supporters of paying college athletes say they deserve compensation due to their dedication and amount of revenue they bring to their universities; yet, the opposite side argues athletes already enjoy many luxuries along with their scholarships that other college students do not receive.