More handpicked essays just for you.
College athletes should get paid
College athletes should get paid
Should college athletes get paid for playing sports
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: College athletes should get paid
Should College Players Be Paid? There is a controversy on college players getting paid to play, I think that they should not be paid to play. Firstly, most of the athletes are awarded full-ride scholarships to college. For example, “Kicker Lucky for Free UCF Education” reporter for Orlando Sentinel Mike Bianchi, shares factual information on the paying of college athletes (Bianchi). Thus, the NCAA rules clearly state that an athlete “may establish his or her own business, provided the student-athlete’s name, photograph, appearance or athletics reputation are not used to promote the business” (NCAA). Secondly, UCF kicker Donald De La Haye may be at risk for eligibility because of his popular YouTube channel. For instance, Bianchi reports De Lay Haye’s videos are funny and entertaining; however, he certainly uses his name, photograph, …show more content…
Firstly, playing sports is a privilege, so the athletes should enjoy being part of a sports team and not worried about being paid. For example, Sally Jenkins, journalist for the Washington Post, shares that college athletes do not realize the opportunity they are granted when the get to play sports in college (Jenkins). Thus, this point proves that college sports are a privilege and only a select few get to participate. Secondly, there is no fair way to pay the athletes. For instance, Dakota Grossman, journalist for the Daily Utah Chronicle, reports that colleges cannot afford to pay all the staff and the players on the team. Therefore, this confirms that athletes should not be paid in college. Thirdly, the NCAA is a non-profit organization. To illustrate, Sally Jenkins, journalist for the Washington Post, tells that the main goal of the NCAA is to offer an educational service to the student athletes (Jenkins). Consequently, this information shows that free college is a good enough payment for college athletes. For all these reasons, I believe college athletes should not be
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.
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.
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.
The NCAA prides itself as an organization dedicated to safeguarding the well-being of student-athletes and equipping them with the skills to succeed on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life. In order to ensure that participants are students first and athletes second the NCAA has specific rules pertaining to athlete amateurism. The requirements prohibit contracts and tryouts with professional teams, salary for participating in athletics, prize money, and representation by an agent. (Amateurism) These rules not only limit the freedom of the player but also put the player at risk of being taken advantage of due to the lack of a players union and illegality of employing an agent. Other aspects of the NCAA’s rule book have been under scrutiny as well. Marc Edelman, Professor of Law at Baruch College, wrote in his treatise: Why the NCAA’s No-Pay Rules Violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act that courts are now beginning to overturn certain rules that are deemed anticompetitive. This development is important because according to the Sherman Act “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherw...
College football has been a sport in American society for decades. Yet the players playing the sport are not receiving their fair cut of the prize. It has been debated whether or not college football players should get paid for playing. The supporters say that the players are not being compensated fairly and the non-supporters say that the education the players receive is payment enough. They also say that the universities the players attend are providing them with the basic necessities so they should not get paid. College football players should be paid though because they put their bodies at risk, make a lot of money for their school, and the play to entertain audiences.
According to the NCAA regulations an athlete will lose his/her eligibility if they are paid to play; sign a contract with an agent; receive a salary, incentive payment, award, gratuity educational expenses or allowances; or play on a professional team. The word amateur in sports has stood for positive values compared to professional, which has had just the opposite. The professional sport has meant bad and degrading; while the amateur sport has meant good and elevating. William Geoghegan, Flyer News sports editor writes, “Would paying athletes tarnish the ideal of amateurism? Maybe, but being fair is far more important than upholding an ideal” (Geoghehan 1).
Even the waterboy gets paid! NCAA football is a billion dollar a year empire, in which coaches, executives, school presidents, board members, athletic trainers, athletic directors, equipment managers, Waterboys, towel boys, ball boys, and even team mascots all receive a chunk of the revenue. Everyone gets paid except the athletes, who don’t receive a dime of the money. That’s because it’s against NCAA rules to pay college athletes with anything other than an athletic scholarship; anything else, and it’s deemed as an improper benefit, thus making an athlete ineligible if he/she were to accept. The NCAA defends its rule of “no-pay” by claiming that all its student-athletes are “amateurs” and not employees; therefore, they’re legally not compensated. The argument over whether student-athletes should be paid or not, is particularly unsettling within the sport of football, because NCAA football is the most popular and profitable sport of all college athletics. The NCAA’s discrepancy over whether it should pay its players or not, currently has the association fighting a lawsuit filed by former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, who’s suing for compensation on behalf of former Division I football and men’s basketball players. The lawsuit challenges the NCAA’s use of student-athletes’ images and likeness for commercial purposes (PBS.org). In recent months the argument has been geared more towards whether current student-athletes should be paid or not, particularly football players, who like former Texas A&M star quarterback Johnny Manziel, provide the athleticism and entertainment that makes NCAA football the million dollar empire that it is. So, should college football players be paid?
Colleges make a plethora of money off of the sports teams and the players do not see any of that money at all but if they do then their performance would be poor on the field and off the field as well. According to Fred Bowen, “only football and men’s basketball are money-making college sports. Most others, such as field hockey, wrestling and swimming, do not attract big crowds or make big bucks.” (Should college athletes get paid?). Also the sports team that give out the most money for athletes to come and play for them, are football and men’s basketball. “Critics of paying college athletes note that only a small number of them compete in sports or on teams that actually generate revenue. They argue that if players were paid, a handful of exceptional athletes would receive large salaries while most players would receive a pittance, and would probably no longer be offered valuable athletic scholarships” (Paying College Athletes). It is not a surprise to anyone that the main athletes that do want to be paid is football and basketball players. They want to be paid because they bring in all of the money for the school and the...
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!
Pros and Cons of Athletes Being Paid Today in the sports era, there are some of the most talented collegiate football and basketball players. The real question is ‘should college athletes be paid’? Some of the players are so good that people think they should play on a professional level to where they should be paid. There are more people who believe collegiate players should not get paid; than those who believe they should be paid while playing a college sport.
An article, “Should College Student Athletes be Paid,” also brings up an NCAA commitment under the collegiate model which includes institutions creating an environment in which athletes’ activities promote further education. Colleges have the responsibility to create a learning environment, and paying players for participation in sports would inhibit that environment. College athletics are for the purpose of providing entertainment and activity to exist with the intention of attaining higher education. College athletes choose to participate in sports as part of their educational experience, but sports should not become the focus of their college
Should college athletes get paid more money? There has been a constant debate the past few years on whether college athletes, particularly football players, should get paid. “In 1988, the Nebraska legislature passed a bill that would allow the University of Nebraska football players to receive better cash incentives. The bill was later vetoed by Governor Kay Orr, who was governor of Nebraska at the time (O’Toole etal. 2)”. . The dispute comes from coaches, parents of the players, and the players themselves arguing that universities make money off their own athletes and the athletes do not receive any money from that.