To pay or not to pay, that is the question. This question, one of disparity, confronts the NCAA all the time today. Football and basketball players generate billions of dollars in revenue for their schools but do not receive any. College athletes cannot be paid because of the “no pay” rules and the “Principle of Amateurism.” The NCAA will not have to deal with as many rule violations and scandals. Plus, the NCAA could still label an amateurism principle without actually crossing the line with professionalism. Because athletes are focusing solely on sports and have no time to do anything else, athletes need money to support themselves. Not only does the school acquire revenue from ticket sales, apparel and sponsorships, but it becomes more exalted and prestigious as athletes help their schools win championships. Social lives, possible futures and academics are pushed aside so athletes can be a part of a high-caliber team competing for a championship. In the end, not all athletes become professionals. When athletes succeed, they potentially give their schools millions more dollars and thousands more students. The NCAA should change its “no pay” rules based on its archaic “Principle of Amateurism.” If the rules are changed, the NCAA does not have to deal with scandals that infringe their “no pay” rules. One of the main points of the “no pay” rules is that athletes may not accept pay in any form from that sport, accept a promise of future pay or receive any form of future assistance. If the NCAA changes the rules, student athletes would be able to receive money and performance-based bonuses they work hard to earn from their schools, boosters, and other third parties. Consequently, the number of federal laws and NCAA rules broken e... ... middle of paper ... ...g class in the nation because of their prominence. If all schools were of the same echelon of prominence, athletes then would be applying at a school based on location. The prestige alone should serve as an enticement to allocate money among players. To pay or not to pay - that is now a straightforward and simplistic question. College athletes clearly deserve to be compensated or at least be allowed to receive money in any form. The NCAA and college athletes would greatly benefit if the “Principle of Amateurism” changed. If the “Principle of Amateurism” is changed, the NCAA will have to deal with fewer indignities, college athletes can still be considered amateurs while receiving endorsements, and universities would have to fairly give money to players that make them prominent. The “no pay” rules, based on the archaic “Principle of Amateurism,” should be altered.
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.
This is a horrible oppressive system that must be fixed. These athletes are being cheated out of money by the people who should be looking out for their best interest. The corruption going on with the NCAA must be fixed and these athletes deserve to paid. They do so much for their University and the NCAA, there is no reasonable explanation to why they shouldn’t be fairly compensated. The NCAA has to recognize what they are doing to these athletes is unjustifiable, there must be a change in this system. The players have become employees of the NCAA as much as students -- employees with no compensation, which not only violates common decency but perhaps even the law.
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.
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 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.
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?
The debate on whether college athletes should be paid to play is a sensitive controversy, with strong support on both sides. College athletics have been around for a long time and always been worth a good amount of money. This billion dollar industry continues to grow in popularity and net worth, while they continue to see more and more money come in. The student-athletes who they are making the money off of see absolutely none of this income. It is time that the student-athletes start to see some of this income he or she may by helping bring the National Collegiate Athletic Association. There are many people who do not think this is in the best interest of the student-athletes or Universities, but that being said there are also many people who are in favor of the change.
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.
It is reported that the NCAA makes $6 Billion annually. This is all from TV deals, advertisement, merchandise, and sponsorships. All this money because of the players and they don’t see any of it. How would you like to go work for a company make that company a million dollars and you not receive a dime of it? It just doesn’t sound right. Especially when you take into the fact that these players are putting their bodies at risk for their school. A college football player for example, his body takes so much punishment on the football field and injuries absolutely happen and he isn’t getting paid to put his body on the line. What happens to these kids’ scholarships if they suffer a career ending injury? If they were receiving some sort of compensation they can help pay their way forward to having an education if they can’t play a sport again because of an injury. These same athletes are also getting stuck with the medical bills when they get hurt. For example at the University of Maine athletes are responsible for the first $10,000 in deductibles (Emmert, Mark 2014). How is this fair they aren’t even receiving any money to pay for this
...ith no choice but to accept illegal money. If the NCAA would just pay these athletes some type of payment then athletes would be less likely to break the rules of the NCAA
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.
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.
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.
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.