College athletes have been playing without pay for a very long time. As we watch these athletes play for our amusement, we look at them as just athletes. But they are more than just a group of talented kids who love to play a particularly popular sport. They are students, and student-athletes do not get paid like professional players do. They are paid in practically free schooling to the college they play for. Some think that this type of pay is very fair and is an adequate way to pay these talented students. As others believe that this type of pay is not enough and that the student-athletes should be compensated for all the billions and billions of dollars that they make the NCAA each year. Whatever someone may think, these student-athletes …show more content…
do not need more pay other than the scholarships that they already receive. Free schooling is a lot more than most college students get when attending. Even with non-athletic scholarships, they must put in a big sum of their own money, which most of the time results with them leaving college in debt, starting their lives already owing someone money. They are already compensated with the scholarships the school is giving them to play the sport of their choice. So they are already being compensated, just not in money as many would hope. Lawyers have brought up the idea and has gone to court for the idea of paying athletes a mere 5,000 dollars a year as “compensation”.
One might think that that is a reasonable amount of money and that it would go a long way. The problem with that is although 5,000 dollars does not seem like a lot, the NCAA would have to account for every single student-athlete program that pulls in a large amount of revenue. That’s a lot of athletes. Even if the NCAA makes Close to 500 million dollars every year on the March Madness tournaments alone (Should). I will admit, it is not a bad idea, but a lot more thinking needs to go into it before it is really considered. Some more ideas like this should be brought forth to not completely pay these athletes, but maybe help them just a little bit if they need it. The opportunity to receive free schooling and obtain the chance to earn a major professional contract more than compensates these student-athletes (Should). As NCAA president Mike Emmert says, “Rather than push college athletics further and further from academics, we need to bring it closer”. So stop the lawsuits and arguments. In all of this, we are forgetting that these athletes are students as well. And being a student-athlete is not a job. These students do not need to be
paid. The NCAA is already addressing the needs of the college athletes who may not be able to afford to eat by their own means. Free food seriously comes with an athletic scholarship. The Proposal 2013-31-B has the following intent, “To specify that an institution may provide meals and snacks to student-athletes as a benefit incidental to participation to intercollegiate athletics”. Now these proposals do not give these athletes free food all the time. But, if a student should need a snack or meal late at night and should not have sufficient funds to pay for said meal, then that student-athlete can call his coach and he will receive a free meal, even if on campus facilities are closed. And not all student-athletes need these kinds of benefits. Some of them are doing fine and do not need help. So the proposal asks that you ask for help if you should need it (Infrante). The O’Bannon case was a case trying to pay student-athletes 5,000 dollars a year for NIL rights, (Name, Image and Likeliness rights). It was scraped from the central courts because it violates anti-trust laws. The courts also said that the NCAA is not above anti-trust laws and cannot make rulings like this. It has been attempted several times and the court will not appeal. The court agrees that the member schools only need to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student-athletes. Judge Jay Bybee is concerned that offering cash sums to the student-athletes would untether to educational expenses would transform NCAA sports into a minor league status. If it were to be considered a minor league status, then the student-athletes would no longer be able to receive scholarships from the college they attend. And if no scholarship is given, 5,000 dollars a year is not a sufficient fund to pay for all college needs. Some think the 5,000 dollar figure was vulnerable on appeal because Judge Wilken never fully explained why the NCAA and its members colluding to cap NIL rights at 0 dollars is unlawful, but why 5,000 dollars or any fixed amount not determined by a competitive market is lawful. The panel of judges were perplexed by that and were uncomfortable with the idea of linking “cash sums” that are unrelated to education to compensation for student-athletes. The court was inappropriately pleased with the ruling that the NCAA didn’t have to pay their student-athletes. O’Bannon is not the only formal player to bring forth a case like this. It is not uncommon for former players like O’Bannon to argue this; they believe that these student-athletes deserve more then what they are getting. And they are in the best place to argue such an appeal being that they played the same sport under the same law as these student-athletes today (McCann). When you hear the word “student-athlete” or “college sports”, do you think of men or women playing these sports? Men, right? As do millions of Americans who watch college sports. And it shows in the amount of revenue that each popular sport brings to the NCAA’s table. If the NCAA were to pay the student-athletes, would sex be a factor in their decision? Or would everyone get equal pay, unlike the real world we know today. This question would bring up another huge debate if any of the previous cases were appealed (Should). The money that would be used to pay these student-athletes would most likely be taken from the budget of other, lesser known, college sports, such as swimming, cross country, golf, sports of that nature. The result would be that these sports would be shut down. A compensation amount, such as 5,000 dollars, doesn’t sound like a lot, but it adds up fairly quickly. And all that money has to come from somewhere. Without cutting the lesser sports, the idea to pay these student-athletes would be oblivious, by pointing this out, it shows some of the many ways that this sort of action would cause more problems than answers. Athletes are also aware of the contractual agreements with the universities when signing scholarship papers. The university caters for their upkeep and gives them an opportunity to play their preferred sport at a higher level as well as earn a degree. Monetary compensation is not included in the agreements and should not be a matter of contention during the student’s time in his or her university. It is up to the student-athlete whether or not they want to work hard enough to someday make it to the professional level and reap the rewards it brings. So if they think they should be paid, then they better be working their tails off to make it pro. Because any student-athlete has the ability to star in college sports, but not enough to make it pro, so they think they can come to a college and play and make easy money. That might make the student-athletes that have to work hard for what they get furious watching the guys with “natural talent” just fly by. Student-athletes know exactly what they are signing up for they sign the paper to play for the college/university. It the schools job to make money off of them, and they know that, it is all in the paper and they agree to it. It is just like a professional player signing a million dollar contract. Arguers of this case need to stop looking at this problem as only sports related. These programs have to do with primarily their education and schooling first, being that the program pays for their college, and the sport and money second. If the court ever agrees to pay these student-athletes, it would most likely be because some student-athletes need the extra push a year to get them through college without starving to death. It would be used as extra play money or to buy their girlfriend something or anything like that under no circumstances. This money would strictly be used as an aid for these student-athletes. No one is making kids go to school to make money for the colleges and universities. They and their families choose to do this. It is an agreement that is not set up to pay them in ways that is fair in relation to the money the schools make from their participation. It is rather like taking an unpaid internship to prepare for a better job later in life. It is a trade-off. An unfair one, but it is consensual. Which is why every college athlete needs to ask: If the school isn't trying to make money, why did they recruit me in the first place? To help them win. And what comes with winning in the business of sports? Packed stadiums and arenas, television contracts, shoe company sponsorships, global fan bases, merchandise sales in the millions, corporate brand recognition. But you, college athlete, decided for this part of your career not to get paid for it. You agreed for tuition, room and board, books and to follow the rules of the NCAA as compensation. So don't get mad when the system begins to screw you. It is impossible to be the victim when you are the enabler (Jackson) The NCAA and the universities of this great country want only the absolute best for their student-athletes. Would they not do anything to make these student athletes happy? If they thought they needed help with money, do you not think they would step in immediately? The NCAA has everything under control, stop trying to get these student-athletes paid when most of them are doing just fine. The NCAA has it under control and everything is going great. And because of that, student-athletes do not need to be paid.
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.
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.
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 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 get paid an additional salary? They are an important assets to universities and colleges, so why should they not? How else would universities justify taking advantage of these young men and women? These are questions that arise when pondering the issue. This has been a large controversy over the years of rather or not college athletes should be paid, more specifically football and basketball players. However, they fail to mention that colleges are only considering paying a select few, the stars of the sports. Every single sport in colleges is making revenue for those campuses, making colleges money hungry. Thus, if they decide to only pay a select few, would that leave out women sports all together? Why pay college athletes more on top of everything they already receive? Most college athletes receive free tuition, medical care, meal plans and room and board, which can acquaint to more than a quarter million dollars for their entire college career (Scoop, 2013). Why ask for more? What is this teaching our youth? They should appreciate their chance to do what they love and value the education they are receiving, because that education is far more valuable than a potential sports salary. Even though colleges and college athletes have a few good points on why they believe they should get paid, over all the issue is larger than that, college athletes already make their share of “money” through free education and much more.
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.
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.
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
Ever since college students started playing sports, back in 1879 when Harvard played Yale in the first collegiate sports game, the question of whether college athletes should be paid was addressed. From that point on athletes, coaches, and college administrators have brought forward points agreeing or disagreeing with the notion of paying college students. The students argue that they deserve to be paid due to the revenue that they bring for the college and because of the games they play and the championships they win. At first the idea of paying college athletes was out of the question, but now the argument has gone from a simple yes or no to a heated debate. Since college athletes are given a free education, they should not also be paid.
"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.
In today’s society, one of the big controversies with sports is, should student athletes be be paid a salary? Some people believe that they should be paid and others would completely disagree. Even though they technically are being paid, they really are not. The only type of way the athletes would be paid is through financial aid or if they have a job. Only their education is being paid by the school. Although some people believe that they should be paid, it would not be a good idea at all. So college athletes should not be paid at all because they are basically being paid to study and play a sport.
There has always been a lot of debate on whether or not college athletes should get paid. With as much money as college sports makes from these student athletes, should these student athletes be getting paid? There are many different stances on why I feel like these student athletes should be getting paid. I will talk about some of the reasons on why they should get paid. Being a student athlete is a very stressful thing in life at that age as they are attending school full time and working extremely hard at being the best athlete they can on the field.
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!
In recent years, the argument about whether or not to pay athletes playing at the college level has become a matter of national debate. Currently, the ruling is that college athletes cannot be paid. This is a stance that should be maintained. Paying athletes to compete at the collegiate level is unfeasible because it would cost colleges too much, influence student’s educational decisions and create an unfair financial atmosphere between athletes and non-athletes.
As college sports became more popular, and televised the conversation began. The argument on whether or not student-athletes should be played has been going on for a long time. Many people say things like if you pay the athletes it would ruin the purity of college sports, and the players would compete more for money than for the love of the game. They say this even though the college coaches not only get paid, but they get paid more than professional coaches at times, and no one complains about that. Also college sports is not that pure when you look at all of the athlete being paid under the table. People also say that college athletes should not be paid because of the fact that the athletes won’t know what to do with the money in college, and might spend money like an immature little kid. However if you look at it, even when you wait until the Athlete turns professional there have been many stories about athletes going broke due to poor financial management. it comes down to the fact that it’s just not really possible to pay student athletes for multiple reasons. NCAA athletes cannot be paid because many colleges don’t have enough money, it’s not possible to justly and fairly pay all athletes, and paying athletes could possibly change recruiting for the