Timmy Hardin September 15, 2016 English Commentary Essay Athletes everywhere complain and gripe about how little money they have. What they don’t realize is, it’s not just them. Most college students do not have a sufficient amount of money that they can buy whatever they want. It is outrageous that athletes believe they are entitled to accommodations because they play sports. To play a sport at the collegiate level is a privilege (Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Not Be Paid). Students that participate in athletics should not receive any payment because they are receiving tons of benefits, free tuition, and this would extend the talent gap. Athletes are receiving a ton of benefits from the university they are attending. …show more content…
Terrelle sold his Big Ten Championship ring on eBay for over $18,000 (Damien). If it was his ring, why would he be punished for selling it? The NCAA has a compliance clause that states that no athlete should make money based on his/her prestige (Summary of NCAA Eligibility Regulations). Pryor made $12,000 more off his ring than any of his teammates (Damien). The NCAA ruled that Ohio State would be placed on a two-year postseason ban. The NCAA needs to continue to come down hard on players and programs who think they can bend the rules of …show more content…
Instead, put each collegiate player on salary (Thelin). Once again, there are too many flaws to count. For instance, to put a collegiate player on salary, the NCAA would have to take into concern state income tax (Thelin). Each state differs in this regard. Perhaps this will be used as a recruiting tool for universities. The team markets that their state has a lower state income tax than other schools. On top of taxes, the student-athlete would still need to pay for tuition, books, room and board, meal plans, etc. (Thelin). There are flaws to every solution, so why try and change what the NCAA has been doing for years. 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
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.
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.
The schools should not be paying them a salary, but rather allowing their athletes to receive money for their likeness, and/or time. Now not every player is good enough to be promoted like others, it would raise the playing field in college football. It’s very selfish of the NCAA to promote these players and making money off of them with compensating them. When you look at it; it’s si...
Paying College athletes has been a trending topic around the National Collegiate Athletic Association over the years. Many have strong opinions about this topic, and the opinions vary. The discussion of paying college athletes began in 1991 when the famed Fab Five became a household name in the United States. The Fab Five is arguably the greatest recruiting class of all time; all attending the same school (Baxter). The Fab Five first created controversy when they started to question why the university and university officials were making millions and millions of dollars off their names, and they were just deprived hungry college kids not making a dime. Nike even made billions by copyrighting their famed black athletic socks, black athletic shoes, and baggy shorts that they made famous throughout the nation. The question over the past several years has become a general and trending topic of argument. College athletes should not be paid for their performance or to perform for their universities because they are there for an education, questions will be asked, and universities would not make as big of an income off the games.
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.
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.
In recent years the idea of student-athletes getting paid for playing in college has become more and more popular. There have been many instances where questions have been raised surrounding some of the finest athletes participating in the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Some of the biggest names in athletics have been involved, including Cam Newton, Reggie Bush, Johnny Manziel, along with many more athletes who have been exposed by the media for supposedly accepting cash benefits while in college. Most recently Johnny Manziel has been brought up in an autograph scandal. Apparently he was paid ten-thousand dollars for more than over one thousand and one hundred autographs. Ultimately Manziel was only suspended one half of a full collegiate football game, but is it really fair that he was forced to sit a half of football game because he simply gave some people his John Hancock? Reggie Bush and Cam Newton have both been involved in scandals involving mone...
"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.
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!
College athletes should not be paid it will ruin college sports forever. Some people believe that college athletes should be paid by the school because of all of the hard work they put in however they shouldn’t be paid because there is no fair way to pay every college athlete. There are many reasons that college athletes shouldn’t be paid one of the main reasons is that colleges don’t have enough money, the second reason is that they already get money in the form of scholarships, and there is no fair way to pay each college athlete.
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.
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 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.