Should College Athletes Be Paid?

During the 2014 fiscal year, the NCAA, also known as the National Collegiate Athletic Association, had total revenue of nearly $1 Billion. How much of that went to the 460,000 NCAA student-athletes, you may ask? Zero dollars and zero cents. The debate on whether or not student-athletes should be paid, specifically college football players, continues to grow. With this, it becomes increasingly more difficult to deny the fact that college sports are a multi-billion industry and coaches are being paid out multi-million dollar contracts over several years as a result of whether or not their players succeed on the field.

The National Athletic Association’s (NCAA) current policy of not paying college athletes needs to be changed. Athletes need to be compensated for their labor, to ensure their well-being at the Universities instead of using them to gain a profit. There needs to be a change in the world of college sports, there needs to be a Union for college athletes to insure they are taken care of instead of NCAA executives, Athletic Directors and the Coaches of these schools. A quote by Shabazz Napier point guard for the University of Connecticut tells why there need to be a change to the

For over a century, college athletics have thrilled generations of fans; from alumni gathered in stadiums to armchair quarterbacks, the fervor of team loyalty reaches spiritual proportions. This popularity is evident from the gigantic economy college athletics have created, with the NCAA raking in nearly eleven billion dollars last year (Edelman 7). A problem overlooked in spite of this boom is the exploitation of the people who make this venture so profitable: the players. Although it has not always been the case, the majority of players now are grossly undercompensated for contributions to their alma maters, the sport, and the burgeoning economy created by the two. College athletes are exploited when universities refuse to acknowledge

Being a college athlete myself, the one question that tends to be asked by most of the

For quite some time now there has been a great dispute about whether or not athletes at the collegiate level should receive compensation for their hard work. The proposal of payment to student athletes has begun major conversations and arguments nationwide. Some people argue that college athletes already receive compensation by not only having to pay for college tuition but the special treatment that goes along with being a collegiate athlete. While the idea of receiving a free college education for four years is something few would complain about; when examined up-close, the issue becomes more apparent that it is not enough.

I think college athletes should get paid because many college athletes bring in a lot of money for their schools. Not to mention coaches already get paid millions of dollars in college sports. Being a college athlete is a full-time job and a big time commitment. Sometimes college college athletes put in 40 to 60 hours a week for practice, travel, and games. Not to mention they still have to complete their work and get good grades to stay eligible to play so they are left very tired. "The NCAA will make millions of dollars to sales of tickets and merchandise"(Should college athletes be paid). So many people go to the events and they pay for food and drinks and other merchandise.

Over the past few years there has been a huge controversy to take place in the college sports world. Should athletes get paid to play in college? Is the benefit of a free education enough for college athletes? Many experts have argued both sides, in which both are valid but neither one has come up with a deciding factor on why or why not a college athlete should get paid. There is a huge amount of positive and negative outcomes that can be pulled from the situation. College Athletes should not be paid to play because it’s completely unfair to other athletic programs, it would take away the passion and intensity of the sport, and they receive enough compensation as it is.

College athletes are working so hard for their Universities every day. They are responsible for increasing revenues but aren’t rewarded with any monetary compensation. These students are working for their schools and are doing a service that seems to be overlooked. Some may argue that these athletes are being exploited by their schools, tv, and video games, which make millions of dollars off of intercollegiate athletics. Colleges are just using these hard working athletes to increase their reputations. Compensation of athletes I believe is necessity not only to keep competition at a constant level in college athletics, but also to encourage students to want to graduate high school, and get their college degrees. Everywhere else in this

Throughout the years, the United States has been struggling on whether or not college athlete students should be paid. According to the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association), association that regulates college sports, it is against the law to pay athlete students. Even though they are a lot of lawsuits and complains the law remains the same. Student athletes should not be paid because: it would not be profitable for the universities, athletes should go to college for an educational purpose rather than for a business purpose, and paying them would change the essentials of college sports.

For some time, there has been much debate on the topic of paying college athletes. In courtrooms across the United States, a resolution—and a possible revolution—is beginning to gain traction. Some people believe that a scholarship is payment enough, whereas others believe the athletes are being exploited to generate millions of dollars toward the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Although student athletes and universities should agree on a term for scholarships, paying athletes additional money would undermine the value a college education.

Recently, one of the most prominent and controversial topics in sports is whether college athletes should or should not be paid to play. Many experts tend to argue that college athletes should not be paid to play in schools. I disagree with this argument due to various reasons. A key source of income that is seen to exist in different institutions is college athletics. It largely attracts many students into institutions. Moreover, many universities worldwide depend on athletes in order to produce as well as maintain the institution’s name and popularity. Therefore, college athletes play a significant role towards promoting their schools in achieving their different goals such as an adequate income acquisition. Thus, my question is, why do college athletes not get paid?

There has always been a big controversial debate on whether college athletes should receive some type of compensation for playing Division one sports. Many college teams pile up huge revenue from football games, basketball games, and many other different sports. Although the university piles up huge amounts of that money, not one penny goes towards any of the athletes. Even though they’re the reason why universities are getting rich from all the money the sports have obtained, the revenue that usually comes from game tickets, sponsorships, and booster clubs. Also college athletics have a huge popularity among Americans over the past few years, more American have turned their heads to watching collegiate sports rather than watching professional sports, to the fact that its way more exciting. This has resulted into increased revenues for the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the other colleges that’s participating with this, in this case the debate of whether college athletes should be compensated beyond their athletic scholarships. Student athletes have worked hard, have dedicated themselves to the sport and also sacrificed their own time for the sport they love.

Although student-athletes are noticed, scouted and recruited by colleges for their athletic abilities, the colleges’ main priority, to educate the students, does not change. According to Krikor Meshefejian, “[this is] the main problem with paying student-athletes… it is not the college’s primary function” (“Pay to Play”). However, when debating pay for play in college sports an individual must consider the hypocrisy of the current system. One could question the colleges’ chief concern when they look at the scheduling of games, as well as game times. The National College Players Association argues that the N.C.A.A. could do a better job at not scheduling games during the week when classes are in session because this stresses student-athletes scholastically (“College Athletes”). Unfortunately, many people that oppose college athletes being paid have ignored the underhanded ways of the N.C.A.A., as well as the colleges when they state what their central goals are with student-athletes. According to the New York Times, “Last August, [federal] Judge Claudia Wilken ruled against the N.C.A.A. and in favor of O’Bannon, who argued that college athletes should be paid for their names, images and likenesses” (“ N.C.A.A.”). This ruling is a gigantic stride in the right direction. Because of the requirements, the revenue produced and the restrictions, college athletes deserve to be paid.

College athletics are great for many reasons. Not only does is it give young men and women the opportunity to play the sport they love, it markets colleges and universities very well. Some athlete’s ways of getting out of struggles back home is through their sport, and for most sports, before they step on a professional field, they have to play in college first. Although college athletics have many great aspects about it, there also negative features that highlight college athletics. In recent years, the payment of college athletes, and if it should happen or not, is a hot topic. College athletes are looking for compensation from his or her college or university, for the revenue him or her make for the school. I believe that college athletes should in fact be paid, but most importantly be unionized by the NCAA. For the NCAA to grow the next best thing is recognizing their athletes as employees. Every school is different from its revenue stream in athletics, but once athletes are seen as employees of the school, the deliberations between the athletes and head school officials can begin. Each year that goes by that the NCAA has yet to unionize college athletes, as well as find a way to compensate them, college athletics become more controversial and problematic.

Today more than ever, college sports are not just a game but instead a billion dollar business. The NCAA likes to refer to student athletes as amateurs and believes they shouldn’t be compensated while many others can argue that the players are being manipulated and exploited and deserve to be paid for play. Those who support the NCAA’s decision not to pay the players agree that there is no payment system that would fairly pay all students of all sports. They also believe that students are already being paid through their full or partial scholarships. Those who oppose these ideas believe that athletes are taken advantage of and deserve a cut of the millions they are making for the NCAA and the university they attend. The controversial