Schools often lack funding for their basic needs. This makes sports funding insufficient, for all athletes. Sports funding needs to be provided by student athletes. Outside sources need to provide help in funding, for school sports. These fees are cheap and inexpensive to participants in sports. Only interested students will participate in sports. Children need to learn that not everything should be given to them.
Government provide an enormous amount of funding in a school’s budget. Giving enough money for educational supplies in most cases. Without spending any of the government money on athletic supplies. Making it necessary to charge athletes for the sports they participate in. This steady flow of cash keeps these athletic programs running. Benefits include, facility upgrades, new uniforms, and paying coaches. This keeps athletic programs thriving, but denies the government from making cuts to the budget. Athletes and their parents must take a stand by providing some type of funding.
Paying a minimal amount to a sport the participant is in will not be a struggle. Costs are extremely inexpensive. As low as fifty dollars for one sport the athlete is in. These small fees add up rapidly and boost sports programs. A
…show more content…
When a price comes to mind, for them it might be time to change their decision. Participating in athletics is a serious, and unforgiving choice. Wasting time and money on something that will not benefit them will keep these children away. Funding should only be provided by those with love, for the sport they participate in. Student lacking interest will keep their money, and put it back in the bank. Participants in athletics will feel a sense of urgency and true passion, for their sport. Building strong relationships with peers that feel the same way. True character is shown by those who will put in the work to find a way to pay for a
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.
Money Hurts College athletes attend post-secondary schools in order to receive an education and to participate in sports. “Student athletes participate in an organized competitive sport sponsored by the educational institution in which he or she is enrolled. Student athletes must typically balance the roles of being a full-time student and a full-time athlete” (“Student athlete” 1). Additionally, some people believe athletes should receive a salary. However, paying college athletes hurts the school, the sports, and the athletes.
As I said in my last paragraph, many athletes who receive full ride scholarships have been given thousands of dollars for tuition, a meal plan, free books, and school fees, just to play sports. These athletes are also entitl...
They believe because the student athletes are the ones spending their time both preparing and competing, they are deserving of a share of the athletic programs’ revenues. Though being a college athlete entails a considerable amount of a student’s time, there are many reasons why the college athlete should not be paid.... ... middle of paper ... ... Academic Search Complete.
The reality is that college sports programs, namely the "big name" programs such as football and basketball programs at marquee schools, are businesses that stand to make a large amount of money for their respective schools. According to an article in the Harvard Journal on Legislation, "[i]n the past twelve years, the amount of money generated by these two sports has increased nearly 300%, such that they now fund almost all other sports programs. 41 Harv. J. on Legis. 319. The student-athletes who participate in these programs are part of the reason why these schools stand to make such handsome profits: through ticket sales, endorsement deals, broadcasting deals, and jersey sales (although player names cannot be represented on jerseys), among other things.
Should soldiers or athletes get paid more money? I say the soldiers should get paid more because they protect our country and plus too soldiers represent the United States. Athletes get paid more in a day than a soldier gets a year. The average salary the soldiers get in a year is 99,000. Soldiers don’t get that much like they should get. That's why they need to be paid more money.
Obtaining a scholarship through athletics has always been a number one goal for athletes and is more than enough to compensate for the hard work. The article “Pay to Play: should college athletes be paid?” states “According to the NCAA, [National Collegiate Athletic Association] college athletes often receive grants worth more than $100,000” (Birkenes). Athletes receiving grants of such a high price should have more than enough money to cover college needs. The payment of college athletes would cause not only athletic, but academic scholarships to be lowered and the cause of attendance to rise. The NCAA prohibits the payment of college athletes because athletic scholarships have been raised. In the article “The Call to Pay College Athletes Misdiagnosis the Problem” Yankah writes “The [United States Court of Appeals] required that the NCAA increase scholarship payouts to cover the full cost of attendance…” From the article one can understand that athletic scholarships have been raised, so colleges will not have to pay
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.
Paying college athletes is a bad idea because of the cost associated with it. According to equal rights policies and other rules by the NCAA, colleges are required to pay all athletes, regardless of gender, sport played, publicity for the college from the sport, or proficiency in the sport. This means that colleges like the University of Tennessee, which has over 500 student athletes, would have to devote a large portion of their athletics budget to paying student athletes. According to Jim Walker, these massive costs may cause colleges to close less profitable activities like tennis or golf in an effort to save money for the big, money-making sports such as football and basketball (1). Women’s sports would likewise be targeted, as they usually operate at a higher cost than they bring in revenue (Walker 1). For colleges operating with lower budgets, having sports programs may become completely impossible. As sports editor Al Dunning said “Where are athletes going to play- and receive scholarships- when all but the richest schools go broke?” (1).
Compensating College Athletes Often college athletes get hurt and miss classes. Shouldn’t athletes be compensated for all that is endured? Athletes work hard out on that field and usually get hurt for more than forty hours a week for an entire season. This is why college athletes should be paid.
Parents cannot always support their children financially, there comes a time when they need to be independent adults who can support themselves. During the course of trying to prove their independence, athletes may take out student loans, which put them in a financial dilemma. Paying athletes would make them far less dependent on their parents and take give them a little bit of familiarity and skill in terms managing money. After all, Art students can sell their paintings to the famous museums, science students can publish and sell their findings, and journalism majors can have their articles published in top name newspapers. It is the same situation when someone is able to produce a marketable talent for a school’s athletics department.
Intercollegiate athletes are very well taken care of by their schools and don’t need any other compensation. Football and basketball scouts go to high schools to try to persuade young athletes to join their team, by offering free tuition, housing, food, transportation, and tutors. With all of their big college expenses paid for, athletes don’t necessarily need money. There are many students that would love to receive free tuition above all, yet they don’t because they are not on the football team. Another argument not many people thought of is that if sports teams generate revenue and the athletes receive that money, do high school sports players get paid as well? High schoo...
Many athletes attend college for free as a motivator for them to learn. By giving money to students with educational capabilities, more students have better focus on graduating and fulfill a
Over the past years the usefulness of athletic scholarships, and its outcomes for both the schools and athletes has been contested. Opposing parties have debated whether or not banning them will solve the problems that lay within. I believe that athletic scholarships should be interdicted because they are no guarantee of education, good academic performance or a proper lifestyle for the athletes.
Competitive sports Pressure and cost is a complicated issue for competitive sports because, parents wants their kids to play competitive sports, but their kids might not want to play that exact sport, their kids might not want to play a sports that season,lastly their kid might not want to say to their parent that they don't want to play because they already paid for them to play and bought all their equipment.this paper will argue that the costs of competitive sport and the pressure parents put on kids are a bad thing, three reason why are, how much a parent pays for their kids to play a sport,the behavior because of pressure their parents are putting on them,and lastly all the pressure kids get. The actual question this paper will argue is do you want to pay $671 to $1000 a season for you kid to play a sport you might not know if they truly want to play. Have you ever wondered about how much your parents paid for? well your parents pay about 671$to$1000 a year on sports equipment and for you to play the sport you want to. In the article will ‘pay to play’ become a permanent part of school sports?