Another significant reason to pay college athletes is that education is not the NCAA’s priority. The organization is more concerned with the player’s skills on the court rather than their actual education. The NCAA claims that its purpose is “to govern athletics competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount” (“Division”). Despite this bold claim, the NCAA refuses to acknowledge or punish academic irresponsibility. Instead, “the NCAA says it has no legal responsibility ‘to ensure the academic integrity of the courses offered to student athletes at its member institutions’” (Ganim). This lack …show more content…
By saying so, the Association undermines the claim that it should not pay athletes. The president of the NCAA, Mark Emmert, says that the organization should not compensate their players because “we do it [play sports] in the context of higher education” (DeMars). Yet, some college athletes hardly get a higher education at all through the NBA rule. In the NBA rule, high school athletes must attend college for at least one year before being eligible for the professional draft. Both the NCAA and NBA claim that the rule exists to “ensure that student-athletes get an education, or at least a part of one” (Editorial). In reality, however, the NBA rule only benefits the NCAA financially. The NCAA is willing to sacrifice a student-athlete’s full education as long as the athletes bring in at least one year of revenue for the organization. “The NBA Rule is designed to protect the quality-of-play of NCAA teams and thereby their television-broadcast revenues” (Palaima 36). Therefore, students come to a university only as a pathway to the pros, even if they have no desire for a higher education. Another issue is the fact that many student-athletes are faced with the issue of providing for their family, which is an impossible task while juggling athletic responsibilities. If college athletes were to be paid, “players wouldn’t have to leave school early and would still be able to pursue an …show more content…
Mark Emmert, the NCAA president, once said, “we want to produce amateur athletics, not professional athletics. The only way we can do that is to set restrictions on what colleges can give to their student athletes” (Goldstein). Such restrictions include not paying the college athletes. Paying college athletes would require them being treated as employees, which is an idea that the NCAA will not tolerate. Mark Emmert expressed his concern further in a separate interview: “I can’t say it enough, obviously. Student athletes are students. They are not employees” (Zirin 110). Therefore, college athletes would not be paid because critics believe it may diminish the importance of a college education. Bob Costas, a famous sports announcer, once said, “I think that argument [of paying college athletes] is predicated on a woeful premise, which is that really, the education doesn’t matter that much” (Finkel). However, many student-athletes do care about their education. For example, “the University Kentucky has established a fund … to provide scholarship assistance to athletes who want to complete their degrees” (McCormack 28). If college athletes were to be paid, they may be too focused on their sport and will not be passionate enough about their education to go back to school. By not paying college athletes, the NCAA is ensuring
To pay or not to pay college athletes, that is the question. It seems like it would be a simple yes or no answer, but there are many underlying factors as to why paying athletes would be a negative. All universities vary in size and popularity, so how would it be possible to pay all athletes the same amount? Student is the leading word in the term “student-athlete”. They are not considered employees, which is what paying athletes would make them. While universities are making some profit off of the abilities of their athletes, college athletes make the personal choice to play a sport. Due to the differing popularity and size of universities and their athletic programs, there would be no fair way to pay all athletes. In addition, many athletes already receive compensation in the form of publicity, scholarships, and access to a high education, and therefore the NCAA and universities should not pay athletes.
Some feel that by not paying college athletes that college institutions are thereby exploiting their athletes free of charge, which is unfair. However, this article feels that college athletes are paid very favorably by the large amount of money they receive for schooling through scholarships. Also, since college athletes don’t pay to play or go to school they are receiving a free college degree whether or not they decide to stay in school for four years or not. With the training that they receive from professional trainers and nutritionists for a professional controlled diet they save possibly thousands within the 4 years they attend school and perform in collegiate athletics.
First lets explore the history behind the paying of college athletes. Over the past 50 years the NCAA has been in control of all Div.1, 2 and 3 athletic programs. The NCAA is an organization that delegates and regulates what things college athletes can and can’t do. These regulations are put in place under the label of ‘protecting amateurism’ in college sports. This allots
Tyson Hartnett of The Huffington Post once said “Even with any type of scholarship, college athletes are typically dead broke.” This quote is regarding 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 that college athletes are not professionals, they should most certainly be paid to play for their respective schools due to many factors. These factors include health risks and the income they bring in for their colleges as well as to the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
... being paid. Many people prefer watching college sports over professional sports based on the idea that money isn’t involved in college sports. They are competing and giving everything they have for the love of their teammates, the love of their school, and above all, their love for the game. Paying athletes would ruin this standard of intercollegiate athletics. For all these reasons, college athletes should not be paid beyond their full ride scholarships.
Many sports people say that if the NCAA pays the athletes to play, it will encourage them to stay in school longer. The money that the athletes will receive at the next level will be bigger than any amount the NCAA can afford to pay them. Athletes argue that the NCAA and ESPN are making billions of dollars off of them to air their games; why can’t they get compensation for it. This argument is valid, but no matter what amount, free education is far more valuable than any financial amount. You’re talking about giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to
Today there are over 450,000 college athletes and the National College Athletics Association (NCAA) faces a difficult decision on whether or not college athletes should be paid. Many people believe that they should and many believe they should not. There are several benefits that college’s athletes receive for being a student athlete. Why should they receive even more benefits than their scholarship and numerous perks?
Student athletes should not be paid more than any other student at State University, because it implies that the focus of this university is that an extracurricular activity as a means of profit. Intercollegiate athletics is becoming the central focus of colleges and universities, the strife and the substantial sum of money are the most important factors of most university administration’s interest. Student athletes should be just as their title states, students. The normal college student is struggling to make ends meet just for attending college, so why should student athletes be exempt from that? College athletes should indeed have their scholarships cover what their talents not only athletically but also academically depict. Unfortunately, the disapproval resides when students who are making leaps academically are not being offered monetary congratulations in comparison to student athletes. If the hefty amount of revenue that colleges as a conglomerate are making is the main argument for why athletes should be paid, then what is to stop the National Clearinghouse from devising unjust standards? Eventually if these payments are to continue, coaches, organizations, and the NCAA Clearinghouse will begin to feel that “c...
College athletes should be paid! College athletes are often considered to be some of the luckiest students in the world. Most of them receiving all inclusive scholarships that cover all the costs of their education. They are also in a position to make a reputation for themselves in the sporting world preparing them for the next step. The ongoing debate whether student athletes should be paid has been going on for years. These athletes bring in millions of dollars for their respective schools and receive zero in return. Many will argue that they do receive payment, but in reality it is just not true. Costs associated with getting a college education will be discussed, information pertaining to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and benefits student athletes receive. First, I’ll start with costs associated with college and most of all why student athletes should be paid!
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.
The proposal of payment toNCAA student-athletes has begun major conversations and arguments nationwide with people expressing their take on it. “This tension has been going on for years. It has gotten greater now because the magnitude of dollars has gotten really large” (NCAA). I am a student athlete at Nicholls State University and at first thought, I thought it would be a good idea to be able to be paid as a student-athlete.After much research however; I have come to many conclusions why the payment of athletes should not take place at the collegiate level.The payment of athletes is only for athletes at the professional level. They are experts at what they do whether it is Major League Baseball, Pro Basketball, Professional Football, or any other professional sport and they work for that franchise or company as an employee. The payment of NCAA college athletes will deteriorate the value of school to athletes, create contract disputes at both the college and professional level, kill recruiting of athletes, cause chaos over the payment of one sport versus another, and it will alter the principles set by the NCAA’s founder Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. Under Roosevelt and NCAA, athletes were put under the term of a “student-athlete” as an amateur. All student athletes who sign the NCAA papers to play college athletics agree to compete as an amateur athlete. The definition of an amateur is a person who “engages in a sport, study, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons” (Dictonary.com).
I believe that college sports should be considered a profession. Athletes deserve to be paid for their work. College athletics are a critical part of America’s culture and economy. At the present time, student-athletes are considered amateurs. College is a stepping-stone to the professional leagues. The NCAA is exploiting the student- athlete. Big-time schools are running a national entertainment business that controls the compensation rate of the players like a monopoly (Byers 1).
Kenneth J. Cooper stated that, “Two law professors at Michigan State University, Robert and Amy McCormick, think it is definitely a job for football and basketball players on athletic scholarships at Division I schools” (Cooper). But in reality, college athletes are considered students because they are there for school, and not for work. In a way students are being paid, but only their education is being paid by the school and scholarships or financial aid. “The NCAA, in accordance with courts that have addressed the issue, believes that student athletes are not employees, under the law, and that they should not be treated as employees either by the law or by the schools they attend” (Cooper). But if the players were paid it would not be fair at all because of how will the money be distributed among the players.
Abstract: Collegiate athletes participating in the two revenue sports (football, men's basketball) sacrifice their time, education, and risk physical harm for their respected programs. The players are controlled by a governing body (NCAA) that dictates when they can show up to work, and when they cannot show up for work. They are restricted from making any substantial financial gains outside of their sports arena. These athletes receive no compensation for their efforts, while others prosper from their abilities. The athletes participating in the two revenue sports of college athletics, football and men's basketball should be compensated for their time, dedication, and work put forth in their respected sports.