College Athletes Should Not Be Paid

Should college athletes be paid? This is a question that has been asked and discussed a million times, and yet, there still isn't a straight answer for it yet. There are many people who say that college athletes should be paid. Although, there are also a lot of people who think otherwise, that college athletes should not be paid. I believe that college athletes should be paid because they work hard at the sport and risk getting injuries from playing the sport and they deserve something for it besides scholarships for schooling.

There are many different reasons why college athletes should be paid. I think that they should be paid for what they do because they work really hard and they are risking getting serious injuries from playing

the sport they play. These sports played by college athletes bring in a lot of money for the school and the coaches every year. If the schools and coaches are being paid for the athletes' work, then why aren't the athletes themselves being paid in any way? According to David Brooks, "College football coaches at public universities make more than $2 million on average, and even assistant coaches sometimes nearly make $1 million." So, if the coaches are being paid this much when they aren't the ones on the field, this doesn't make sense that the players wouldn't be paid. Why aren't the players being paid for their work when the coaches are being paid to stand on the sideline and watch them play? It's not the coaches that are playing. It's the players. The coaches may have a big part in the team's performance, but the players get it done.

Also, these college athletes are risking getting a serious injury from playing these sports that could potentially affect the rest of their lives. For instance, football players. Football is a very dirty, dangerous sport and these players are risking their health to play for a team when they aren't being compensated in any way. I think that they should at least have some assurance that if and when a college athlete is injured, whether it be in a practice or in a game, that medical attention to the injury will be paid for and the athlete will not be rejected from the school or team because they got hurt while playing for that team.

According to Allen Sack, "Athletes who have been injured or who turn out to be recruiting mistakes can be fired." I feel that it isn't fair that a college athlete can be kicked off of their sports team or lose a scholarship for a sport at a school and have to leave the school all because they got injured. I think that if a college athlete gets injured at a practice or a game for their team, the school or team should pay for their recovery because that player was playing for them. That player was representing their team. I would think that the school or team would feel responsible for the injury.

There are many reasons why college athletes should be paid for playing on a team at their school. Such as, the fact that schools are receiving money from the NCAA for their athletes' performances in games and such. These sports that the college athletes play are seriously dangerous! These players suffer from injuries that could potentially affect their entire futures, dementia, and CTE which comes from repeated blows that these college athletes face every day in practice and games. Most of these athletes don't have their own money outside of scholarships for schooling. They can't get their own jobs outside of playing their sport because that sport takes up too much of their time. These athletes struggle to even pay for food themselves because they don't have the money to pay for it!

Other reasons why college athletes should be paid include the time that they put into the sport that they play. According to Allen Sack, "It is a little wonder that a recent survey of college students by the NCAA found that the majority of those polled identify themselves more as athletes than as students."

College athletes spend the majority of their time in school practicing or playing in games for the sport that they participate in and barely have time for schoolwork. I believe this is where the "dumb jock" stereotype comes into play. These athletes don't have the needed time for their studies to complete a degree because they are devoting all of their time to the sport they play. College athletes put so much time and effort into the sport they play that they should be considered as employees for the school, but they aren't. I think that this isn't fair. According to Marc Edelman, a writer for Forbes, "The typical Division I college football player devotes 43.3 hours a week to his sport-3.3 more hours than the typical American work week." After this being said, why aren't college athletes considered as employees when they devote literally every waking moment that they have to the sport? They're college students! I don't think that they should have to devote 90% of their time to something like this until they're out of college with steady jobs to be honest. Plus, colleges are making money from advertising a certain athlete with t-shirts, hats, jerseys, jackets, socks, etc.

There are a million reasons why people think that college athletes should be paid. Some of them, not so reasonable, but there are a lot of reasons why college athletes should be paid to support themselves without their scholarships to a certain school. If college athletes were paid, they could support themselves and their families. The players would be able to afford to buy themselves a decent meal besides the stereotypical college student mean, ramen noodles. These athletes could then also send some money back home to their families. Most college athletes come from low class families and the athlete couldn't finish schooling because this was putting too much pressure and stress on the main provider of the family. If college athletes were paid, they might have the ability to stay in school longer and pursue a worthy degree. The players wouldn't have to leave school early before they have a degree to go back home and support their families. They could pursue a worth education! This could potentially increase college graduation rates for college athletes.

I've rambled on and on about the many reasons why college athletes should be paid for what they do, but there are also some people who believe that they should continue to not be paid.

For example, college athletes are pushed by their coaches to pursue easy, useless degrees that will be easy to fulfill so that they still have the time to practice the sport and travel with the team. Another reason why college athletes should not be paid is the fact that some sports don't bring in as much money as others. Swimmers or volleyball players don't bring in as much money for their sport as football. College football and men's basketball are the college sports that bring in the most money. There are also debates on the amount that a college athlete would be paid accordingly to the position they play on the team. For example, on a football team, the kicker wouldn't make as much money as say, the quarterback. This is why people think that college athletes just shouldn't be paid. There would be too much controversy on how much a certain person would make according to the position that they play on the

team.

College football and men's basketball generate billions of dollars every year through contracts for televised games. If these universities and colleges are making so much money, then why aren't the players being compensated in some way? Are big time universities exploiting their players to make money? According to Amanda Bokshan, writer for USA Today College, "Quite simply, the answer is no. Universities should not allow players to receive any kind of compensation for their performances. Many people are not aware that most athletic departments actually lose money year after year trying to fund programs. Out of the 120 FBS (formerly named Division 1) schools, only twelve broke even or made a profit last year." How are these college athletics departments supposed to find money to pay their players? "The money they would be using would be coming out of the university’s general funds, which would mean taking money away from academic scholarships, classroom resources and professors’ salaries. Athletes already have their tuitions paid for, not to mention their room and board, meal plans, and all of the other perks they receive" as also stated by Bokshan.

According to Kristi Dosh, "You cannot pay players without invoking Title IX. Safely assuming that any pay-for-play plan would include paying male football and basketball players, you run into huge issues with federal law." Legally, you can't pay college athletes.

According to John R. Thelin, "a student-athlete paid a salary would owe $23,800 in federal income tax and $6,700 in state taxes, a total of $30,500. In cities that levy an employee payroll tax, the salaried student’s taxes go up about $2,400 per year. Income taxes then are $32,900. And, as an employee, the player would have to pay at least $2,000 in other taxes, such as Social Security, for a total of $34,900. This leaves the college player with $65,100. Since college bills come to $65,000, the player has $100 left." On this hand, I can understand why college athletes aren't being paid. This makes it seem like the schools are saving the college athletes' money. By not considering the college athletes' as employees, the schools and teams are saving them money so that they are not having to pay taxes.

If colleges and universities' teams pay their athletes, they are irresponsible with money.

They're college students and college student's don't know how to handle their money. They do not know how to manage their money and use it wisely. If college athletes are paid, there will obviously be a range in salaries of players. The college athletes would be paid accordingly to their position on the team and all of the college athletes would have different salaries and they would feel that it was unfair that one person would get paid more than another because of their position on the team. There would be problems between the players. If college athletes are paid for their work, thy may never have the incentive to go to class. Most college students can get paid to attend college but if the athletes already have money from playing the sport that they're interested in, they would never want to go to class. Plus, if college athletes were being paid, they may lose passion for the game and they may not perform as well. Most of the players would see that they were getting paid and they wouldn't care if they played their best because they would still be getting paid the same salary. The players would take on a mindset that they are professionals and they won't work as hard for what they are

receiving.

In conclusion, I can fully understand both sides of the debate. There are many reasons why college athletes should be paid. But, there are also just as many reasons on why college athletes should not be paid. I still believe that college athletes should be paid for what they do because they are devoting their college life to play on a sports team and they can easily be injured, and it may affect the rest of that player's life.