With the way the NCAA has blown up into a billion dollar industry, does it seem plausible for an academic institution to make this amount of money off of amateur athletes and not provide some other type of revenue besides scholarships? This has been at the forefront of debate as the NCAA continues to make billions off of these so called amateur athletes. The NCAA believes that if compensation is given to student-athletes, the amateurism of the game is taken away. However, many student-athletes believe they should get a piece of the revenue that is being generated off of their name and talents. College athletes should in fact be compensated because the NCAA generates enough revenue to provide the money, it could help students pay for all the …show more content…
College athletes should be compensated because the NCAA clearly has the revenue. It will simply take a reallocation of funds to compensate student-athletes. Most important, however, is the fact that these athletes are the ones who generate the profit in the first place. Without star athletes, the universities and the NCAA would fail to make as much profit as they have become accustomed to. Therefore, placing the money back into the athletes would be the best direction to go. Not only would the athletes feel more accomplished within their sport, but they would actually become more accomplished with their studies. Funneling these extra funds to the athletes would allow them to feel less stressed about paying for their education. This in turn would allow them to perform better in their classes and on the court. However, universities have to apply this idea to all sports. Without compensation to every athlete, the overall idea of this act does not stand. When universities think about ways to better their sports programs, they should consider this path because it would lead them to far greater students and
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.
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 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.
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
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
Obviously, the big money sports such as college basketball and football are big revenue sports and paying those athletes might be an easy argument to make. Delving deeper into this topic brings up issues with the lesser interest sports at these same universities. How do you find revenue to pay these athletes? Is it fair to only concern yourself with the “big money” sports and not so much the other sports? I do not claim to have concrete answers to these issues, to be honest. I do not think it is fair to only take care of the sports and athletes that make up most of the money the NCAA brings in. I do feel that with the total amount of money that is out there if enough people get together that solutions can be worked out. I do feel that all of these athletes should be treated equally. If you pay the more popular athletes then you should pay the less popular athletes as
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 scholarships given to college athletes are not sufficient enough to sustain them throughout the year, which is why I believe they should get paid and receive benefits. Student athletes, especially football and basketball players, play a major role in generating revenue for schools, businesses, coaches and the players do not see a penny. College athletes often do not have money in their pockets for extra food, clothes, housing and extracurricular activities. They also can potentially get dropped from their teams due to injury, leaving them incapable of paying for college. College athletes should be treated like every other employee because they work hard, and make everyone but themselves a lot of money.
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!
Despite the strength of the reasons as to why student-athletes should not be paid, there are certain problems with the current NCAA system which can and should be cured. The gap between a full scholarship and the cost of attendance should be covered by the academic institution, especially when a student athlete does not qualify for a loan. Such a policy will go a long way in ensuring that student-athletes are not leaving school to become professional athletes because they cannot pay their bills. Academic institutions should be able to provide at least that much for their athletes. Ultimately, this is a form of payment, but it is not the type of payment that some individuals are advocating. The primary purpose of these institutions is to educate; it is the coach's job to teach, and not just in terms of the sport a student athlete plays. These schools should facilitate the educations of student-athletes through scholarship grants, but not through a system of salaries dependent on supply and demand, which ultimately detracts a student-athlete from picking a school, and detracts them from attending a school, for the right reasons.
In 2013 Colleges earned a generated revenue of $48.2 million from their football programs alone (Sanderson and Siegried). Colleges are generating more than enough money from just their athletics to pay their players. In 2011 the NCAA reached a 14 year deal with CBS Sports worth $10.8 billion. Part of the deal makes all games in the NCAA division one tournament to be shown on four channels. Money is not the issue. Colleges receive hundreds of millions of dollars from their sports teams each year. Student athletes should be getting paid.
A question that has been rising to the surface lately is “should college athletes be paid a salary?” One cannot get on the internet now a day and not see some kind of college sport headline. The world of college sports has been changed greatly the past decade due to college athletes. These athletes make insurmountable amounts of money and an unbelievable amount of recognition for the universities. The athletes that provide and make a ton of revenue for the colleges also spend a huge amount of their time practicing and staying committed to sports, and have to maintain good grades in school which requires quite a bit of overtime. Because college athletes generate massive amounts of revenue and put in massive amounts of personal time for their individual universities, colleges need to financially compensate players for their contributions. The colleges that these superstars represent are reaping all of the benefits of the accomplishments the athletes have, yet the big named players are making nothing from what they do.
On the issue of college athletes getting paid, I believe they should. When I mean getting paid I only mean a stipend or weekly check, not thousands or millions. All the hard work and dedication they put into their sport and academics are worthy enough. I have had a chance to play collegiate sports and it takes a lot out of you mentally and physically. The student athletes deserve at least enough money to have a normal student life. $300-$400 a month should give athletes enough money to get the required necessities. All this does is replace the notion of the athlete getting a job for a source of income. This will also help reduce the rate at which athletes accept money, cars, and gifts from boosters. When athletes get caught accepting something from a booster it looks bad on the athlete and the college. So, in my opinion yes college athletes should get paid, there is too much money that the universities have earned floating around going unanswered for the athletes not to get their cut.
They should worry less about being paid because then it would typically be a profession. However, as an athlete myself, college athletics does feel like a non-stop job. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) should add the cost of necessities to scholarships as a rule since some people think that a scholarship is enough. People would say that college athletes are greedy but competing for a college with a great chance of getting hurt and being unable to go to the professional level is a huge sacrifice for most of these athletes especially those at the major sport colleges. Schools keep saying that athletes are just students which are false because they are obviously student-athletes. Athletes could be making so much money; even people who try to give some good college athletes some form of payment for their great work are punished as well as the athletes. (Gazett). It is evidently unfair to sell merchandise with some of the great college athletes names on it; they should get even a quarter of this money if any money at all because it is their