College Athletes -- Pay for Play?
There have been ongoing arguments over the past decade of whether or not college athletes should be paid to play. Many argue that they do not have time to get real jobs because the requirements for the sport that they participate in are far too demanding. Others cite that these athletes are provided full scholarships to attend the schools at which they are playing the sport. However regardless of the argument, I still feel that college athletes should NOT be paid to play.
College athletes are not forced into playing the sport that they have devoted their time to during their years in secondary education. They continue to play into the college level for their love of the game. And for this, many college athletes are offered full scholarships. Today’s tuition for many schools are so expensive that without the scholarships that some of the students receive, they would not be able to attend college at all. For these students, college sports offer a great avenue to obtain an education that otherwise would not have been available for them. This allows them opportunity to study something that they can use to build a better life for themselves and their families.
Many people believe that the money generated from the sports played by these kids should be given back to them as they are the ones drawing the fans to these events. However few realize how little schools actually gain money by participating in the National Colligate Athletics Association. A recent study conducted by USA today showed that there are only 40 schools that consistently turn profits from the sports that they host. (Whiteside, USAtoday.com) This means that out of approximately 200 schools who participate in division one sports, only 1/5 actually would have money available to give back to the student athletes. Furthermore, it would be unfair to provide the students who play the sports, the money that is generated from their events, rather then putting the money back into the schools. Although these students participate and spend much of their time playing, they are no more special then the average student who attends the school. Putting the money back into the school itself allows everyone a better education, rather then just a few students, some spending money.
There are also arguments that because of the rigorous sch...
... middle of paper ...
...” says Myles Brand the president of the NCAA. (USAtoday.com) The program continually complains that providing players unsanctioned funds spoils fair competition between teams, because some players will only want to go to schools with a reputation for providing players extras such as money, cars etc.
While there are several arguments for a pay for play program, the downside to these arguments outweigh any chance of a program ever being put into action. The NCAA maintains that it will never allow for such programs however they are trying to allow more freedoms to student athletes. These freedoms include bigger monthly stipends, and more money allowed per year in the Special Assistance Fund. If these adjustments can be made I feel as though it will never be necessary for a pay for play program, and the NCAA can maintain the integrity it hopes to achieve.
Work Cited Page
1) Whiteside, Kelly (2004) College Athletes Want a cut of the Action-http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2006-08-31-top-ten-number-7_x.htm (accessed November 28, 2006)
2) Fleck Jon (2002) College Athletes–pay for play?- http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-9-2006-9123.asp (Accessed November 28, 2006)
Those who play popular and highly competitive college sports are treated unfairly. The colleges and universities with successful sports like football and basketball receive millions of dollars in television and ad space revenues, so do the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which is the governing body of big time college sports. Many coaches are also paid over $1 million per year. Meanwhile, the players that help the colleges receive these millions of dollars are forbidden to receive any gifts or money for their athletic achievements and performances. As a solution college athletes ...
Tyson Hartnett of The Huffington Post once said “Even with any type of scholarship, college athletes are typically dead broke.” This quote regards a tremendous controversy that has been talked about for the past few years. He talks about whether or not college athletes should be paid for their duties. Despite the fact college athletes are not professionals, they should most certainly be paid for playing for their respective schools due to many factors. These factors include health risks and the income bring in for their colleges as well as to the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Should college athletes receive pay for what they do? You’ve probably seen this pop-up a million times, and thought about it. You’ve probably figured why should they? Aren’t they already receiving benefits from a full-ride scholarship? But then an athlete will get caught up in a scandal like Johnny Manziel, where he signed footballs for money.. then you think well why shouldn’t he receive that money? And you then contradict yourself. But shouldn’t they receive money from outside sources, and then the benefits from the school. Not get a salary from the school just the benefits they’re already receiving, and money from sponsors. Wouldn’t that make sense considering the money they’re making the school? According to an ESPN report Alabama University makes $123,769,841 in total revenue from sports. (College Athletics Revenue) Yes ONE HUNDRED & TWENTY THREE MILLION. Yet an athlete from Alabama can only receive benefits from a scholarship.. That doesn’t seem right. You would want to be payed when the opportunity arises. It should only be fair these players get a piece of the revenue pie, after all they are the ones creating the revenue. The players should be getting benefits to allow them to pay for basic college needs, grow up to be responsible adults, and allow the NCAA to thrive. This would allow for the NCAA to truly thrive as a sporting association.
Throughout the country young men and women are losing their priority for an education. To attend a university should be a highly cherished privilege, and it should be an even greater honor to play athletics for the university. Therefore, the writer supports the decision that the “student” comes before “athlete” in student-athlete. Playing for pay should be considered a job for “professionals”. In the rulebook, the NCAA views college athletes as armatures. This statement sums it up best. When athletes go to college, not all of them go in with the mindset that athletics is going to be their future job....
College athletes generate millions of dollars for their schools each year, yet they are not allowed to be compensated beyond a scholarship due to being considered amateurs. College athletes are some of the hardest working people in the nation, having to focus on both school courses and sports. Because athletics take so much time, these student-athletes are always busy. College football and basketball are multi-billion dollar businesses. The NCAA does not want to pay the athletes beyond scholarships, and it would be tough to work a new compensation program into the NCAA and university budgets. College athletes should be compensated in some form because they put in so much time and effort, generating huge amounts of revenue.
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 people who are in favor of the change.
College athletes should not be paid it will ruin college sports forever. Some people believe that college athletes should be paid by the school because of all of the hard work they put in however they shouldn’t be paid because there is no fair way to pay every college athlete. There are many reasons that college athletes shouldn’t be paid one of the main reasons is that colleges don’t have enough money, the second reason is that they already get money in the form of scholarships, and there is no fair way to pay each college athlete.
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 would dramatically shift their focus away from where it should be - gaining knowledge and skills for life after college” (Lewis and Williams). This is very understandable because one of the biggest reasons college sports are so popular is because the athletes play for school pride and for bragging rights. They play because they enjoy the game, not because it is their job. Most people that disagree with the idea of paying the athletes fail to realize what really goes on behind the scenes. At most Universities around the country the bulk of the income the school receives is brought in through the athletic programs. In fact the football and basketball teams usually bring in enough money to completely pay for the rest of the athletic programs all together. To get a better understanding of how much has changed in the world of college sports a little history must be learned.
College athletes juggle busy academic and practice schedules all throughout their stressful weeks, so why shouldn't they be compensated for their time dedicated to sports? NCAA rules strictly prohibits players from being paid for all the hard work they do to protect “amateurism”, but are you really an amateur putting in over 40 hours a week between practice and other activities? Although students earn a college scholarship, that doesn’t cover living expenses, and access to a degree at the end of their career, players should be paid because schools, coaching staffs and major corporations are profiting off their free labor.
On the issue of college athletes getting paid, I believe they should. When I mean getting paid I only mean a stipend or weekly check, not thousands or millions. All the hard work and dedication they put into their sport and academics are worthy enough. I have had a chance to play collegiate sports and it takes a lot out of you mentally and physically. The student athletes deserve at least enough money to have a normal student life. $300-$400 a month should give athletes enough money to get the required necessities. All this does is replace the notion of the athlete getting a job for a source of income. This will also help reduce the rate at which athletes accept money, cars, and gifts from boosters. When athletes get caught accepting something from a booster it looks bad on the athlete and the college. So, in my opinion yes college athletes should get paid, there is too much money that the universities have earned floating around going unanswered for the athletes not to get their cut.
Should college athletes get paid to play sports? Yes college athletes should get paid because they are playing for the school, athletes risk their lives and college athletes also keep their grades up to play.
This has always been an argument for many years and still don’t have any answers till this day. Many athletes want to get paid like professional athletes but colleges disagree. College athletes should not be paid because it would be unfair and would negatively impact students.
Many people believe that College athletes have it easy, and who wouldn’t think that? A free education, free living; getting to travel and play the sport that many people would love to still be able to. Student athletes also get to pick classes earlier than a regular student and have the ability to be excused from classes to go to games and special events. The life of a student athlete sounds like an enticing thing for many people; especially those who are not student athletes on scholarships or walk-ons to a college team. The rising cost of attending college has made the younger athletic population work just as hard to receive a scholarship to play a sport, because they may come from poverty where they can’t otherwise afford to attend school, which is beneficial to them. Understand, that college is a place where academics comes first, and everything else is second; this includes athletics. But are these athletes treated fairly and given all the right things they need to succeed in life, let alone college?
For decades there has been a debate on student athletes and their drive to succeed in the classroom. From the very beginning of organized college level athletics, the goal to want to succeed in athletics has forced students to put academics to the back burner. In spite of the goal to want to succeed over a hundred years of attempts to check limits of intercollegiate athletic programs on colleges' academic standards still seems to struggle to this day. This brings to surface one of the most asked questions in sports, “What effect does college sports have on academics and economics?” Herbert D. Simons, Derek Van Rheenen, and Martin V. Covington, authors of “Academic Motivation and the Student Athlete” researched the topic on whether athletics and academics benefit each other. Bryan Flynn, the author of “College Sports vs. Academics” poses the question “Should institutions of higher learning continue to involve themselves in athletic programs that often turn out to be virtual arms races for recruiting talented players who bring big money and prestige, but put academics to the back burner?” Although both authors agree that sports have an impact on an athlete’s academics, the focus of their argument differs.
The problem with this is that this is the coach's job- but it isn’t the job of the college student. While it would be understandable if there was nothing being given to the students for playing the sport- but there is. Playing sports in college is not a job, it’s part of going to that school. Because overall, you are not an athlete-student, you’re a student-athlete, and sports is just a part of college- not an employment. And while coaches get paid, and money does come in from the games, it goes to funding the school sports program. So, even you don’t directly get paid money, it’s still benefiting you in the end. This is another valid reason why I believe that college student-athletes should not be paid.