Student Athletes Should Not Be Paid
In the world of college athletics there are endless topics discussed daily and most pertain to money. An issue that falls under this category includes the heated debate involving whether or not student athletes should receive money. Many people say student athletes should receive compensation according to their specific needs because they spend so much time earning their scholarship and have no time to work. On the other hand, the stronger argument is student athletes should not be able to acquire additional funds in order to help aid them through college. An athlete knows what he or she is involving themselves in before any money issue is even brought up. Signing a letter of intent shows that they understand this. But people still feel the opportunity to work a job while competing in a sport is virtually non existent in a division one atmosphere, and therefore athletes need money.
When looking at all angles, those that feel athletes should be paid usually have the same arguments. They think because athletes have minimal free time and a lot of the school’s revenue is produced by them, this qualifies athletes to a portion of money. For instance, football and men’s basketball have proven over the years to make the most money for most universities. In fact “Since 1965, the NCAA increased its revenue by 8000 percent and CBS signed a contract through the year, 2002, for $72 million to cover the NCAA tournament. (“For Years” par. 5) With these kinds of numbers produced by college athletes many suggest they need to receive a little back. It’s a reasonable thought since athletes are responsible for such an enormous amount of cash flow. The NCAA is often compared to a business and a bu...
... middle of paper ...
...a university and playing a sport at the same time was supposed to be easy or profitable.
If a law was to pass regarding college athletes receiving money many things would be different in the future. A major concern involves recruiting. Universities allowed to pay players would be able to buy recruits persuading them to attend the school offering the most money. It’s almost like a free agent in professional sports. Attending the school with the most to offer decreases the likelihood of a fair playing ground for all of college athletics. As a result certain schools would be major powerhouses and it would stay this way forever. Although there are some schools considered powerhouses now, the odds of a school with complete domination would be much more likely. Overall if student athletes begin to get paid, collegiate sports will become corrupted.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Another reason that college athletes should not be paid is because they are, under NCAA rules, to be considered amateurs. In the National Collegiate Athletic Association Rules it states, “College athletes are not to be paid, not to cash in on their prominence, never to cross any kind of line of professionalism.” Steve Wieberg, of the USA Today, studied the rules that the NCAA has placed on paying college athletes. He concludes that, “Athletic programs are meant to be an integral part of the educational program” (Weinberg). The reoccurring theme here should be obvious now —education is the most important part of the student’s time in college and being an athlete should come second.
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.
Kerley K. and Benson M. (2000). Does Community- Oriented Policing Help Build Stronger Communities? Police Quarterly: 3 (1)
"The best argument against paying players is that it diminishes the value of an education" (qtd. in Zimbalist). State University has breached its academic standard by allocating unnecessary expenditures to athletically advanced students. Student athletes should not be paid at State University, because it focuses on an extracurricular activity as a means of profit, praises athletic ability over merit/ scholastics, promotes a bridge between players and regular students, and creates hierarchy between universities.
The college athletes of their respective sports today, have the opportunity of showcasing their talents in competition on local and national programming on a regular basis which has lately brought attention this controversy, paying college athletes. The issue was brought on by the athletes over time, then caught onto coaches, sports columnists, and fans. The athletes dedicate themselves to the sport to a caliber comparable to the professional tier. The idea of paying the athletes could be considered as they play major factor in reputation of their schools, as well as funds for their schools. However most colleges do not have profitable sports teams. Thus, paying athletes would prove to be a very difficult endeavor and this could destroy college athletics as we know them today.
Despite the strength of the reasons as to why student-athletes should not be paid, there are certain problems with the current NCAA system which can and should be cured. The gap between a full scholarship and the cost of attendance should be covered by the academic institution, especially when a student athlete does not qualify for a loan. Such a policy will go a long way in ensuring that student-athletes are not leaving school to become professional athletes because they cannot pay their bills. Academic institutions should be able to provide at least that much for their athletes. Ultimately, this is a form of payment, but it is not the type of payment that some individuals are advocating. The primary purpose of these institutions is to educate; it is the coach's job to teach, and not just in terms of the sport a student athlete plays. These schools should facilitate the educations of student-athletes through scholarship grants, but not through a system of salaries dependent on supply and demand, which ultimately detracts a student-athlete from picking a school, and detracts them from attending a school, for the right reasons.
One reason that college athletes should be paid is because they earn their revenue that is distributed to coaches and colleges they represent. And is it not unusual to not even receive a little percentage of it. Major college sports earn around $11 billion dollars according to Marc Edelman who is an associate professor of law at Zicklin School of Business. According to Edelman, colleges that partake in college sports can earn up to $100 million in revenue. This revenue is used for paying coaches, college campus, and etc. This distribution of money is not wrong and has good intention. However, colleges spend too much on their expenses and don’t recognize the efforts of the athletes. For example, according Marc
There has always been a love-hate relationship between the public and the police. When called upon to help, they can be something sent from God, but when they are writing tickets, or taking a friend to jail, the view changes from a savior to a presence that is unwanted and often hated. An effort to improve the public view of law enforcement is being attempted by many departments. Using different styles of policing techniques, mainly community based policing, has proved to be the best way to improve the image of law enforcement.
The key aspects to community policing involve having officers working in permanent neighborhoods, the involvement of citizens to identify problems and have potential solutions, and the reliance on agencies to help locate issues. The cornerstone of the program is the citizen interaction with the police. It is reported that communities that receive community policing funds have reduced levels of violent and property crimes, also has a greater number of arrests. Successful partnership helps with the reduction of gang and drug activities, area crime rate, and the improvement of the relationship between law enforcement and
Stress has various effects on the body, both psychological and physiological. Stress can have positive effects on the body and can be beneficial, but frequent stress will eventually cause negative effects on the body.
(Berlin, Michael M. "Encyclopedia of Community Policing and Problem Solving.") At the same time, aggressive patrol tactics adopted in response to rising crime and civil disobedience increased the likelihood of hostile confrontations between police and citizens and contributed to increasing complaints against the police (Berlin, Michael M. "Encyclopedia of Community Policing and Problem Solving.") The community policing literature strongly suggests that community policing could improve communication and trust between police and citizens, reverse the growing distance and isolation of the police from the public, and reduce citizen complaints of brutality and indifference (Berlin, Michael M. "Encyclopedia of Community Policing and Problem