Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
An exploratory paper on college athletes being paid
Paying college athletes
Benefits of paying college athletes
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An exploratory paper on college athletes being paid
Paying College Athletes The main place where student athletes can express themselves and show off their skills through college athletics. A century has passed and student athletes now feel like they should get paid on top of the benefits they already receive studying at a university. In the event that that happens, the only beneficiaries would be the athletes of the largest sports programs like football and basketball. It would create unneeded chaos between universities and smaller colleges and the more and less popular athletic programs. In the end, it would mean the end of college athletics. College athletes benefit in different ways and are not in need of getting an extra salary for playing in athletic programs. When someone thinks
The National Collegiate Athletic Association, or NCAA, has said that the high revenue sports subsidize less profitable sports like lacrosse, soccer, and hockey (Majorol). The consensus is if universities, with vast amounts of funding, start offering a play and get paid initiative that the lesser colleges would struggle to compensate, from a declining recruiting class, and their less popular athletic programs would slowly fizzle to nonexistence. Hypothetically, as athletes recognize that they can get an education, play college sports, and also get paid like an employee they will start transitioning away from the lesser schools while creating a pool of players in the top schools. Not only would that turn out as a horrible situation for minor schools, but this also means that college sports’ would not be exiting to watch when the top four schools fight it out, in the tournament each year. Eventually, ratings and ticket sales would go down due to the loss of unpredictability in games. College athletics are only a portion of negatives that come out of paying student athletes, the athletes themselves are also in virtue of
Until just recently according to an article in the Harvard Journal, “in the past twelve years, the amount of money generated by [football and basketball] has increased nearly 300%, such that they now fund almost all other sports programs” (Meshefejian). This points out that if student athletes were given a salary, the only athletes that would receive it are those in basketball and football. The less popular sports athletes would either switch to these two sports, or continue playing the sport they love while their colleagues thrive in the sport they love while getting an
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.
Critics feel that the term amateurism is only a term used in collegiate sports to show the distinguish the difference between professional and collegiate so that they don’t have to pay college athletes. College athletes are just as talented and just as exposed as professional athletes. The argument is for there to be a share in the profits for wage compensation amongst players is know as pay-for-play. College athletics is a corporate enterprise that is worth millions of dollars in revenue. Pay-for-play is an assumption that colleges and universities receive huge revenues from marketing their collegiate sports programs and that the profits from these revenues are not shared with players who perform in the arena. Which some feel that they should.
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 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.
... being paid. Many people prefer watching college sports over professional sports based on the idea that money isn’t involved in college sports. They are competing and giving everything they have for the love of their teammates, the love of their school, and above all, their love for the game. Paying athletes would ruin this standard of intercollegiate athletics. For all these reasons, college athletes should not be paid beyond their full ride scholarships.
College sports are so entertaining because any team can win any game due to the spread of great athletes all over the country. If colleges started to pay the athletes, whatever team had the most money would have the best athletes, meaning there would only be a couple of good teams in each sport and they would dominate. Professional sports teams are a collection of the best and most skilled athletes in that sport that can play for 15 or more years. In college, athletes only have four years of eligibility before they are ineligible and can not participate in college athletics anymore and many of the great athletes leave after one or two years of playing college sports. If money was used to pay the athletes, the corruption of college sports would increase. Money is never a good idea to be involved in sports, because it always causes bribery or exploitation. For example, the recent events with the FIFA organization and how some of the top authority figures have just been banned for many years for taking bribes, illegal ticket sales, and other scandals (Davis). This relates because it goes to show any CEO or president of a company can be bought and if money started to get more involved in the world of college sports it is hard not to think that some authority figure for some team would be bribed. Even the students might be involved in the bribery. If college athletes were to get paid there would be a limit to how much they would get paid. Fans and sponsors of the college teams would then offer additional benefits to get the athletes “persuaded” to come to their school. Then student athletes will not have to attend class or even participate in the student part of student athlete. The college athletes would start to be glorified and treated like kings even though they are coming into their college as just
...whole different world from professional sports considering they supply men with a family to help grow character with, supply them with a free education, and create a whole community of people that are loyal and generally remain loyal to one school. This bridge between the two sports could be majorly affected if college athletes were to be paid and would then bring up the issue about paying even high school athletes eventually. It is merely opening a can of worms and has been a tradition for so long that it should remain one for years to come. College athletes might not be receiving a full salary but that is not the point of it and they know what they are getting into when they commit to playing a sport. This long-standing barrier between professional and college athletics should remain how it is for the good of everyone but mostly the athletes and college programs.
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?
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.
College athletics is a billion dollar industry and has been for a long time. Due to the increasing ratings of college athletics, this figure will continue to rise. It’s simple: bigger, faster, stronger athletes will generate more money. College Universities generate so much revenue during the year that it is only fair to the players that they get a cut. College athletes should get paid based on the university’s revenue, apparel sales, and lack of spending money.
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.
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 because they are basically working for the school. When a student gets a scholarship to a college for a sport they are expected to practice with the team and without the team, so on their free time. College athletes go way over the maximum amount of hours they are allowed to practice with the team. A 2011 survey, from the article Should College Athletes Be Paid?, states “The NCAA has a limit of 20 hours of training per week, D1 football players on average practice 43 hours a week, baseball 42.1 hours a week, and men’s basketball 39.2 hours a week”(Walch). With
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!