More handpicked essays just for you.
How do you explain the controversy of paying college athletes
Summary on college athletes getting paid
Summary on college athletes getting paid
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The compensation of college athletes may seem simple, but there are many variables that play a factor in a decision so impactful like this. Such as which athletes get paid, how much do athletes receive, and the most controversial question of all who pays these athletes. Concluding on a decision is difficult for the decision-makers of college athletics. In one of my sources A solution for the pay for play dilemma of college athletes. The author suggests the answer is right in front of our faces, instead of arguing about these variables just remove the amateur label off all college athletes and let Adidas, Nike, under armor, and other corporation’s compensate these athletes. Also instead of the pay for play concept these athletes would receive
their compensation after college when their eligibility expires since the NCAA refuses to let athletes get paid while they're still in college. This proposal is certainly feasible, but the whole point of paying college athletes is so they have money to survive while still in college this proposal would make athletes wait years to receive their money. With my proposal of athletes receiving compensation from both the NCAA and independent companies for advertising rights. All athletes receive a set compensation rate, except for the most high value athletes which would negotiate a price with the NCAA. Athletes would have the money they need so they wouldn't be condemned to hunger, poverty or homelessness. Figuring out a solution isn't going to be easy but a decision needs to be made soon.
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.
The proposal of payment toNCAA student-athletes has begun major conversations and arguments nationwide with people expressing their take on it. “This tension has been going on for years. It has gotten greater now because the magnitude of dollars has gotten really large” (NCAA). I am a student athlete at Nicholls State University and at first thought, I thought it would be a good idea to be able to be paid as a student-athlete.After much research however; I have come to many conclusions why the payment of athletes should not take place at the collegiate level.The payment of athletes is only for athletes at the professional level. They are experts at what they do whether it is Major League Baseball, Pro Basketball, Professional Football, or any other professional sport and they work for that franchise or company as an employee. The payment of NCAA college athletes will deteriorate the value of school to athletes, create contract disputes at both the college and professional level, kill recruiting of athletes, cause chaos over the payment of one sport versus another, and it will alter the principles set by the NCAA’s founder Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. Under Roosevelt and NCAA, athletes were put under the term of a “student-athlete” as an amateur. All student athletes who sign the NCAA papers to play college athletics agree to compete as an amateur athlete. The definition of an amateur is a person who “engages in a sport, study, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons” (Dictonary.com).
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.
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.
Abstract: Collegiate athletes participating in the two revenue sports (football, men's basketball) sacrifice their time, education, and risk physical harm for their respected programs. The players are controlled by a governing body (NCAA) that dictates when they can show up to work, and when they cannot show up for work. They are restricted from making any substantial financial gains outside of their sports arena. These athletes receive no compensation for their efforts, while others prosper from their abilities. The athletes participating in the two revenue sports of college athletics, football and men's basketball should be compensated for their time, dedication, and work put forth in their respected sports.
Another reason that college athletes should not be paid is because they are, under NCAA rules, to be considered amateurs. In the National Collegiate Athletic Association Rules it states, “College athletes are not to be paid, not to cash in on their prominence, never to cross any kind of line of professionalism.” Steve Wieberg, of the USA Today, studied the rules that the NCAA has placed on paying college athletes. He concludes that, “Athletic programs are meant to be an integral part of the educational program” (Weinberg). The reoccurring theme here should be obvious now —education is the most important part of the student’s time in college and being an athlete should come second.
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?
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.
Even the waterboy gets paid! NCAA football is a billion dollar a year empire, in which coaches, executives, school presidents, board members, athletic trainers, athletic directors, equipment managers, Waterboys, towel boys, ball boys, and even team mascots all receive a chunk of the revenue. Everyone gets paid except the athletes, who don’t receive a dime of the money. That’s because it’s against NCAA rules to pay college athletes with anything other than an athletic scholarship; anything else, and it’s deemed as an improper benefit, thus making an athlete ineligible if he/she were to accept. The NCAA defends its rule of “no-pay” by claiming that all its student-athletes are “amateurs” and not employees; therefore, they’re legally not compensated. The argument over whether student-athletes should be paid or not, is particularly unsettling within the sport of football, because NCAA football is the most popular and profitable sport of all college athletics. The NCAA’s discrepancy over whether it should pay its players or not, currently has the association fighting a lawsuit filed by former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, who’s suing for compensation on behalf of former Division I football and men’s basketball players. The lawsuit challenges the NCAA’s use of student-athletes’ images and likeness for commercial purposes (PBS.org). In recent months the argument has been geared more towards whether current student-athletes should be paid or not, particularly football players, who like former Texas A&M star quarterback Johnny Manziel, provide the athleticism and entertainment that makes NCAA football the million dollar empire that it is. So, should college football players be paid?
There has been a debate recently about College Athletes and if they should be paid. If it was up to me, they should be paid. There are many reasons that I think this. There are also reasons that they shouldn't be paid, but I won't be talking about those a lot. But, there are many benefits to College Athletes being paid.
In the article, “Should College Athletes Be Paid? By Kamal Walker, he utilizes logical fallacies to prove his point. At first, Walker goes into much detail upon the fact that the NCAA and several universities make a substantial amount of money at the expense of their athletes. He also mentions that these NCAA athletes are sacrificing a lot when partaking in college athletics. As stated in the article, “To begin, there is a ton of money being made by colleges and universities at the expense of these young athletes. These players sacrifice their time, their education and even their bodies for the sake of their teams” (Walker). This easily exemplifies an appeal to pity tactic. This can be seen as Walker is trying to make the reader feel bad
The huge amount of money being made off college sports has led some to question whether student-athletes can be considered amateurs any longer, and whether they should, instead, be paid for their efforts, the argument can be made that the opportunity to both receive an education and get the exposure to win a major professional contract more than compensates NCAA athletes for their
This is an argument you can find anywhere. ESPN, Sports Center, and even on your local news channel, college athletes getting paid is more of an argument then most people think. Some people usually jump to conclusions, “They shouldn’t get paid!”or “Aren’t full ride scholarships enough?” Well, there are many more facts and statements to go with this. It can be a major topic to argue about, because there are really some good counter arguments to change people's ideas, including me. Usually some colleges can’t afford it, supposedly, and that the pride and heart of the athletes are lost because money overcomes on where they are and what they do. Maybe that could be a topic, but it would be great to pay for the best in the league, have it more competitive, and to have more than one team, instead of Alabama, win a championship throughout the years.