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)
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.
Van Rheenen, Derek. "Exploitation in College Sports: Race, Revenue, and Educational Reward." International Review for the Sociology of Sport 48.5 (2013): 550-71. Print.
Lewis, Michael, and Bob Williams. "SHOULD COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYERS BE PAID?" New York Times Upfront Nov 17 2008: 22. ProQuest. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.
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.
Instead, put each collegiate player on salary (Thelin). Once again, there are too many flaws to count. For instance, to put a collegiate player on salary, the NCAA would have to take into concern state income tax (Thelin). Each state differs in this regard. Perhaps this will be used as a recruiting tool for universities. The team markets that their state has a lower state income tax than other schools. On top of taxes, the student-athlete would still need to pay for tuition, books, room and board, meal plans, etc. (Thelin). There are flaws to every solution, so why try and change what the NCAA has been doing for years.
There have been games at the college level where athletes have left everything they had on the field or court in order to win the game. Athletes do not need paychecks in order to perform. A college education is something that no one can take away. And receiving that education and all the extra gear and team apparel an athlete receives free of charge is enough to convince some players to play in college. The main reason an athlete decides to attend a college for sports is because of the scholarships. The NCAA reported that over $1 billion is spent on scholarships each year. That is a major reason why college athletes do not need to be paid. Keeping the amateurism of college athletes is very important to the NCAA. Overall, there is no reason college athletes should be paid to play the sport they love since they are already some of the most privileged students on
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?
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.
Attempting to pay student-athletes as full-time employees would be almost impossible to pull off and difficult to do fairly. If athletes were treated as employees of their respective university or college the issues professional sports have would enter into the college game. Students could potentially strike and also schools with more funding could simply offer to pay athletes more than other schools could. Subsequently turning collegiate sports into smaller versions of their counterparts, money hungry professional sports, which is something I do not think anyone desires. Many people enjoy college athletics for the sole reason that the athl...
"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.
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!
Some people say that college athletes get paid by having a scholarship, but if you look at it a different way, scholarships might change your mind. Coaches try to get players who they think have the talent to make them win and to persuade them to come to their school by offering them scholarships. The whole idea behind a scholarship is to lure the athlete into coming to your school. Scholarships are nothing more than a recruitment tactic. They will give you a scholarship as long as you produce for them. It’s all about what you can do for them. Indeed these scholarships pay for tuition, room and board, and books, but these athletes don’t have money for other necessities. The NCAA doesn’t want friends or boosters to offer athletes jobs because they ...
The college sports industry produces around 11 billion dollars in annual revenues. Sounds like there’s enough money to pay college students, right? Wrong. In my opinion, college athletes should not be paid for playing sports in college- it’s unfair, unnecessary, and there’s just no good justification. Why? Well, there are several reasons I believe this, and why you should too.