The American dream of making a living in sports at both the collegiate and professional level grows each year. The youth of today’s society strive to join the ranks of the professional athletes they worship, and college is the beginning of that dream. Over the past few decades, college athletics have gained immense popularity across universities in the United States. Intercollegiate sports bring in a surplus of revenue to their respective universities as well as build a reputation for the college. Athletes attending Division I sports go to their particular schools in hopes of fulfilling their dream of making it professionally. There is a long-debated argument on whether college athletes at the Division I level should be paid to attend school …show more content…
Cooper questions if playing at the Division I level is more of an extracurricular activity or a job. The amount of time and effort these athletes put into their respective sports trumps the amount of time put into their education. Preston R. Clark presents another side of the argument in his article, “Athlete-Student?”, where he focuses on the disparity among financial expenditure of an average student and an average athlete in universities in the United States. Both articles agree that it is acceptable for universities to pay student-athletes as long as both the school and the student are …show more content…
Cooper supports his argument that student-athletes are employees by including the common law of employment. Common law has three tests in order to classify as an employee: “the right of others to control a person’s activities, whether that person is compensated and if that person is economically dependent on that compensation” (Cooper, p. 13). According to the law, college athletes meet all three qualifications of an employee. The coach has control over their schedule, an athletic scholarship amounts to compensation for their time and effort, and players depend on their scholarship to fund for food, housing, and education. Clark focuses on the inequality between financial spending on students and student-athletes. The average difference between spending on an individual student and an athlete among the big six conference is $104,270 (Clark, p. 25). In addition to the difference between spending, the graduation rates from the big Division I schools have a lower percentage compared to the overall student body population. Alabama (75%), the University of Florida (75%), Louisiana State University (77%), and the University of Georgia (69%) rank among the top in the country for graduation rates in their football programs (Clark, p. 25). These statistics portray that all other Division I schools have less than 75 percent of their players graduating with a degree. The use of logos
The article responds to the debate about if college athletes should be paid on top of their scholarships/benefits. Critics of college sports argue that these student athletes are being exploited because it is possible for schools to generate revenue from TV contracts and other beneficial arrangements. Ackerman and Scott, both commissioners of a conference/sport, respond by stating “College is a time from learning, and college sports provide young men and women alike a chance to learn, grow, graduate, and achieve great things in life.” The purpose of this article is to educate the audience, critics of
Introduction In the recent years, a big debate has transpired in the realm of college athletics: should college athletes be paid to play? The answer to this question is very complicated and will continue to be debated for years to come. This question has been debated for a long time but has recently become much bigger as more and more people watch games, buy jerseys, and tickets become more expensive; therefore athletic departments are making more money. There are people who have very good arguments for both sides of this dispute.
Since the 1950’s the NCAA has promoted an idea that student athletes that are given a full scholarships are receiving a free ride for their education. In this article Ramogi Huma, and Ellen Staurowsky highlight controversial issues about how college athletics are run. In the article it is noted that 45% of football, and 52% of basketball players do not graduate. The two programs that revenue the most money for an athletic program are Men’s Football, and Men’s Basketball. The article debates that the NCAA uses the money that athletes in men’s football and basketball generate from their play to assist in funding other programs in the athletic department. While athletes are generating millions of dollars for their universities, the athlete spends on average of $3,222 in out of pocket expenses. While attending these universities these athletes live at or under the poverty line. If these athletes were allowed access to the fair market like the professional athletes, the average FBS football and basketball player would be “worth approximately $121,048 and $265,027 respectively (not counting individual commercial endorsement deals)” (Huma). The NCAA maintains that these athletes are amateurs and to keep their eligibility to participate in college athletics they can receive zero compensation for their talent. By maintaining this view point the NCAA allows athletes to only receive grant-in-aid’s which reward the athlete with free tuition, and room and board and can receive no other
Today, sports are no longer fun and games, sports are a business, and college sports are no different. Many division college sports produce a huge amount of universities’ income. The school receives money from ticket sales, television contracts and games, and sport-related merchandise, along with many other sports related revenue builders. The athletes on the other hand, receive their scholarship and little more. While the idea of receiving a free college education is something few would complain about; when the issue is most student athletes are struggling with outside payments from college. Scholarship money is for the athlete’s school not pockets, therefore athletes have hard times wanting to continue college moneyless. Universities are
Also playing a sport in college limits the time student-athletes can make money to pay for their day life. Krikor Meshefejian who is a senior editor for the Journal of the Business Law Society said, “ The truth is that ‘‘‘full’’’ scholarships do not always entirely cover tuition and cost of living. However, these students can still do what a majority of students do, which is to get loans. Still, some of these student-athletes do not qualify for such loans, so there is still a gap between the money they get and the total cost of attendance. This gap, coupled with the fact that football and basketball players help generate so much revenue has caused come intercollegiate teams to provide their athletes with extra compensation, which is in direct violation of NCAA bylaws”(Meshefejian 2).
College athletes have much more responsibilities to worry about than pros, and scholarships don 't help athletes that much and they often don’t even finish college. The problem is college athletes don 't get paid when they have twice the responsibilities of pro athletes. college athletes have to juggle their sport practices and games, being on the road a lot of the time, going to classes everyday, and going to work so they can have money to eat. The solution would be to take out of all the money college athletes make from games, and memorabilia. NCAA is a billion dollar organization and they don 't pay the very people who make them the
Considered amateurs to the sport—college athletes are blessed with a unique opportunity to showcase their talent on a national level, and in return of showcasing their talent—the athletes are also provided scholarships (partial or full) towards their degree, but according to some that is not enough. For years, many athletes, parents, and physicians feel as if the athletes are being treated like employees because of the time commitment, strict scheduling and potential for long term injuries. For these reasons, pay checks are being requested. However, the student-athletes signed up to participate in collegiate sports. They were not forced or drafted by the NCAA to play the game they love. In exchange for participating in collegiate activities—the student-athlete is provided free education and experiences that will last a life time. Because student-athletes are considered students and are provided with scholarships and unique experiences—they should not be paid for their athletic performance for many substantial reasons.
Most of us should be aware of college athletics’ plight. Over the past few years student athletes have gotten huge recognition. There is a controversy whether these athletes should or should not be paid. Even though they make a substantial contribution to their school, these student athletes are not paid by the university. In some cases they are the reason for increasing the College’s reputation. In addition, these athletes increase the profits of the university, therefore these athletes should receive a part of the profits. First and foremost, universities use these athletes as core marketers, also such student athletes’ training sessions are comparable to a full-time job, and they worked hard to get there.
Since the beginning of organized sports athletes have been pouring their heart and soul into playing the sport their hearts desire. It has always been the love of the game, the hard work and dedication that student athletes to the collegiate level. When athletes reach the collegiate level it is more or less a business, and their job is to bring in a profit for the university. Over the past few years students and others have wondered: should college athletes be paid? Student athletes shouldn’t be paid because they do get scholarships and it would be harmful to the university budget as a whole. In this essay I will discuss the effects of paying student athletes on the university and other athletes. Also, addressing issues such as exploitation and showing how much athletes are really receiving.
College sports are one of the largest and fastest growing markets in today’s culture. With some college sports games attracting more viewers than their professional counterparts, the NCAA is one of the most profiting organizations in America. Recently there has been controversy in the world of college sports as to whether the college athletes that are making their universities and the NCAA money should receive payment while they are playing their respective sport. Many believe that these athletes should be paid. Others argue that they are already receiving numerous benefits for playing that sport from their universities. Many of the proponents of paying college athletes are current or former college athletes who believe their hard work and hours put into practice and competing go under appreciated. They feel that while the athletes are making the university money, the athletes do not receive any cut of these profits. Opponents feel that athletes already receive numerous perks and should not receive extra compensation on top of the perks they already receive.
The ugly truth behind the money machine that is college sports is that, every year, college athletes are deceived by the institutions the compete for into making them millions of dollars, with relatively little in return. Athletes are said to be given a chance to attend college and to attain a free college degree. However, research has shown that this is not completely true for two reasons. For one, the student athlete will spend most of their time in preparation for competition. Secondly, what education the student athlete does receive hardly serves them outside of maintaining eligibility just so
As of today, there are over 460,000 NCAA student-athletes that compete in 24 different sports while in college throughout the United States (NCAA). Over the past couple decades, the argument for paying these college athletes has gained steam and is a hot topic in the sports community. However, paying these college athletes is not feasible because most universities do not generate enough revenue to provide them with a salary and some even lose money from the sports programs. These collegiate student-athletes are amateurs and paying them would ruin the meaning of college athletics. Also, playing college sports is a choice and a privilege with no mention or guarantee of a salary besides a full-ride scholarship. Although some argue that
It is an age old debate on whether a college athlete should be paid. It is a high school student 's dream to play sports at the collegiate level. Many people question why the NCAA, coaches, and administrators are allowed to earn large amounts of money while the student athlete’s hard work and efforts are limited to a scholarship. Others feel that is should be considered a privilege that a college athlete can earn a college degree while enjoying what they love, by playing collegiate sports. Student athletes should not receive payment because they are already receiving payment in the form of an expensive athletic scholarship and are also able to receive the new cost of attendance stipend to assist with further financial burdens.
With the increasing popularity of college sports over the past couple of years, a very controversial topic has risen pertaining to whether college athletes should receive payment or not for playing. The main problem behind the topic of paying college athletes is that college sports rake in massive amounts of revenue for their respective schools, athletic staff, and the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletics Association) but the athletes which participate in these sports and create all the revenue reap none of the financial benefits. To create a better understanding of how profitable college sports are, I present the following quote from Tom Gerencer’s article, “How Much Money Does the NCAA Make?”, “The NCAA makes about $1 billion per year. College athletics as a whole pulls in about $12 billion annually.” (Gerencer 2016) After grasping how much the NCAA and schools profit from college sports, it is very easy to see why there is a problem and why so many people argue that college athletes should be paid for their play. Along with the many supporters of college athletes being paid, there are various people who believe they should not due to their beliefs of education being more important than anything else in college. Now, although college athletes not being paid is the main problem it is not the only problem; the NCAA, which is the organization which runs all college sports, are adamant about college sports being an amateur league and because of this they do not allow athletes
When a student athlete signs a letter of intent to play at a division one school, he or she is generally happy for the opportunity to perform at the highest level of college competition. Like all good things though, they eventually come to an end. After awhile athletes soon begin to realize not all of their expenses are paid for. Because some of the extra costs in college are put on student athletes, some suggest the NCAA and other sources should provide additional funding to help athletes out. This issue has created a heated debate over the relationship between money and college athletes. On the contrary, the stronger argument lies with those individuals that say student