Student athletes of colleges across America practice every day to be able to perform for large crowds year round. These athletes train in the weight and study in the film rooms for hours to perfect their craft in hopes to play well enough to make it to the professional leagues. These athletes, however, are not compensated for their efforts, and this has raised a big question about whether or not these students should receive some monetary stipended for their efforts. This subject divides many people because the answer is not black and white because there are many factors to be considered. A lot of people view these athletes as amateurs and being an amateur comes with them not being paid. Just like how in the Olympics how all the athletes are …show more content…
The other side argues that these kids work long hours in the classroom and on the practice field every day to perform at their best and as a reward for their hard work should have a small compensation to account for it. The idea about whether or not college athletes should be paid for their work by the NCAA is a broad and complicated subject due to the elaborate and moral implications that come with paying unprofessional athletes. Every year the profits of the NCAA increase and their student athletes do not see a dime of the profits. During the 2011 to 2012 school year, the NCAA made close to 705 million dollars(NCAA). Many people argue that the athletes receive scholarships to attend the university so that would mean they do not need to be paid for their boarding, school, and meals are accounted for so …show more content…
One of the main concerns with paying these athletes is how the payment would be distributed amongst all the athletic programs. The football team makes more money than the water polo team. This raises great a pause because there is no way that to leave every student-athlete satisfied with their share of the money. There would be a significant discrepancy in money from individual players on the same sports program. For example, Derrick Henry, the last winner of last year's Heisman trophy, would have to be paid more than the second string defensive line player. Since these guys are not professionals yet it would be unfair for there to be a significant discrepancy amongst the players that all put in such great effort(Emmert). Concern about the maturity of the athletes is the main problem as well. The majority of these athletes are under the age of twenty-two, and many of them have never had a job or have any money managing skills. This opens up for them to be taken advantage of by family members, friends, and others. Another concern is that by paying the athletes; the NCAA would effectively turn college sports into a minor league sports program for the MLB, NBA, and NFL(Emmert). The reason for this concern is that the athletes would become less concerned with their school work and lose out on a chance to earn their degree. It is also important to note that very few college athletes go on to be
There are many situations in the modern day where too many people cause controversy about paying college athletes. They see this as the coarse issue, but paying the athletes will not solve the big problem that you do not think about at first. Although, there are many college athletes that are struggling to get through life and a salary for their hard work will be appreciated, it just will not solve the big issue. This issue would just become worsened.
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
Dr. Pietro Tonino stated that “College athletes are putting themselves at risk for health problems that could persist long after they graduate.” (sciencedaily.com). College athletes today risk their health when they step onto the court or field for college, and get little in return. According to sciencedaly.com, there was a study published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine. Researchers at Indiana University organized an analysis of two groups of people.
...hedules the athletes had, they are still considered just a student. The NCAA cannot continue to allow these schools to work the athletes as much as they do without giving the athletes what they deserve.
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.
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 to be a horrible situation for minor schools, but this also means that college sports’ would not be exciting 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 the negatives that come out of paying student athletes, the athletes themselves are also in virtue of disorder. Not only would college athletics find itself in jeopardy, another negative of giving a college student a paycheck comes to mind.
These athletes receive free tuition, textbooks, rooms, meal, and training. So they should not be paid extra money on top of that. Athletes may have to train hard, but while they are training, non-athletic students are out working to pay off debts. By paying athletes, it would hurt many smaller universities without much athletic funding, as they would not be able to buy the best players like bigger colleges could. College sports are meant to bring players and fans together to celebrate their school, but sports are becoming too big a part of college life. Colleges were created to help further educate students and all college attendees should be focused on education and not extracurricular activities like
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.
Playing a sport in college is equivalent to working a full-time job (Thomas). There are rules that allow major-college football coaches to only demand twenty hours of the players time each week (Wieberg). However, studies show that those athletes are doubling those hours per week during the season (Wieberg). Other sports are putting in the equivalent of a full time work week (Wieberg). Some NCAA officials are concerned with the amount of time spent stating that beyond forty hours is inhumane (Wieberg). Most of the athletes compete and do whatever it takes to succeed, so they enjoy spending countless hours on sports (Wieberg). Many athletes even have struggles in the classroom because they do not have enough time to study. Student-athletes at top Division I schools think of themselves as athletes more than students (Wieberg). Less than one percent of college athletes actually make it professionally (Wieberg). That means these kids should focus more on their education than on athletics. In reality, these official...
"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.
...ecks and be treated as a farm system for the NFL, NBA, or MLB. If these athletes started getting paid now, at the college level, then the major leagues of these sports would suffer tremendously and lose marketability and money. A final solution to not having players get paid or receive certain benefits is maybe these head coaches of certain universities should not be getting the average 2 million dollars a year to be a coach, in some cases more than the presidents of these universities.(Chicago Tribune) There could be major strides made by simply merging that athletes shouldn’t get paid in whole dollars, but should receive paid benefits in which they would not have to worry about starving, losing scholarships due to injury or sub-par play. That I think would make the world for college athletes a better place, where both the schools benefit and the players benefit.
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.
Many students who want to attend college but are not athletes, do not have enough money to afford it. In addition, the money that would be used to pay the athletes, could instead be used for scholarships for the students who cannot afford to get their well-deserved education. Parents all across the country would hate to see their straight A student not get into the college that they deserve just because the can not afford it. So, for an athlete to be paid extra money, while getting a free education, would not be fair to other students who do not have the equal opportunity to attend college due to financial