Analysis: Why Student Athletes Should Not Get Paid

A keener analysis of this case would reveal the likelihood of the existence of the NCAA being towed apart (D'Alessandro, 2013). In his suit, O'Bannon reveals the fact that in 2009 the NCAA expected to reap huge profits in by using his UCLA likeness on a college basketball video game yet the real talents generating the profits both on the field and on the court and in licensed products him includes are in no way going to be compensated (D'Alessandro, 2013). Not only this for there are many sources of the negative criticism of the Association such as the lucrative advertisement deals signed by the NCAA case in point the deal with ESPN of approximately 450 million dollar for the televising rights to broadcast the playoffs of the college football and the major

In the article titled "Enough Madness: Just Pay College Athletes" by Allen R. Sanderson, John J. Siegfried say that the school gains large amount of revenue from television for football and men's basketball, a new football playoff system and seven-figure compensation packages for college coaches all attest to the financial vitality of the college game. Most universities have various men's and women's sports teams and the athletes on the team receive their scholarships and grants that greatly reduce the amount of money they have to spend on college tuition. However, the NCAA sets a limit on how much money in scholarships and grants an athlete receives. With all the work and hours spent by the athletes for a scholarship that doesn't offer an amount that seems reasonable for the amount of work that is put in. The revenues flowing to NCAA members and the relative low amount going to the players, who are the people most responsible for generating those revenues, has caused a growing unease in public opinion if college athletes should be paid.

Should College Athletes Be Paid? In today’s society college athletes being paid or not carries a lot of controversy. In the article “Should College Athletes Be Paid?”, Joe Nocera and Bob Williams both argue this issue. Even though college athletes help make money for the school, college players should not be paid because it could force discrimination amongst other sports, and students could lose their focus.

These scholarships give these athletes everything that they need and much more. Getting paid by the college would defeat the purpose of the scholarship; so the scholarships will be taken away and then the athletes will be left alone dealing with their own money which could prove to be difficult for most of them to manage along with school work and practices. They have everything that they need right in front of them provided for the most part by the school and sports administration department.

There has been considerable controversy over the past years on whether or not National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes should be paid or not. Fans, players, and the board of the NCAA all have their separate beliefs on why or why not the athletes should be paid. These young athletes work their hardest on the fields and attract millions of fans and think money fans pay to watch them perform, can go to them. The University of Alabama made approximately $124 Million dollars in operating revenue in 2008. Based upon those statistics, you can see that athletes have a reasonable argument of why they should be paid a salary when the school is able to afford to do so. While one side believes they should be paid, another side believes they shouldn’t be paid because instead of receiving pay, that possible salary is substituted with a scholarship and education.

One of the most popular pastimes in America is watching college sports. Whether it’s football, baseball, or basketball, these student-athletes bring fans, money, and sponsorships to their schools. So why shouldn't these athletes be paid? The answer is that student-athletes should not be paid, because they have the ability to earn scholarships or financial aid, college athletes are paid in other ways than financially, and not all schools have the money to pay them. Ultimately, paying college athletes would ruin the current culture and competitiveness of college sports.

The college athletes succeed at such a high level, they should be rewarded for their duties. Jeffrey Dorfman, senior writer for Forbes, is one of those on the fine line of wanting to pay the athletes, but at the same time not wanting to pay them. He states “ Student athletes on scholarships are already essentially paid.” He believes that student athletes are getting paid with the scholarship they get, but seeing them rewarded for their hard work would be even better. Scholarships grant student athletes with a place to live, food to eat, a school for education, and all the other essentials. What about that not on scholarship? They do not get the same benefits as those on one. One against paying college athletes is Andrew Sharp, a senior writer for Grantland states “Every Action has Consequences. Someone should explain to college athletes and all the media members out here throwing them a pity party” (Sharp). Although a harsh argument, Sharp failed to realize that for some athletes, scholarships are not paid in full, so they do not get all the benefits. The doubters of he paying college athletes case to re consider their view on this

A lot of people to this day wonder if student athletes should be paid. This topic has created a lot of controversy among a ton of people. Yes, paying student athletes seems harmless, but if you look beyond the big picture, it could ultimately ruin the NCAA and all college sports for good. UWIRE Text stated, “Getting paid would suggest that college athletes are simply carrying out job responsibilities instead of a recreational activity on game day, which could take away the fun and sanctity of watching the NCAA” (UWIRE Text). Student athletes in college should not be paid to play their respected sports due to the fact that they are already getting paid and that it would make the NCAA organization uneven in the payment of players, the classroom,

In recent years mixed feeling have been discussed over college student athletes getting paid. Some feel that players should be rewarded for the huge amount of revenue generated on behalf of their play. Especially when coaches are receiving huge multi million dollar contracts. Currently, NCAA rules do not allow players to receive any compensation. The non-fiction article, “Should College Player get Paid?”, written by Michael Gonchar, explains how NCAA classifies Division I football players as amateurs, not professionals, student-athletes, not employees, which is how colleges get away with paying them nothing. With respect to how hard and how much time college athletes put in, college football players should not get paid due to scholarships, playing is a privilege not a job, and money allocation . They should how ever be compensated, such as

For year’s people, athletes, college directors, and even the fans have always had different opinions on whether or not that the NCAA should pay the college athletes. Many people think that most of the athletes put in as much time for it to be considered a full time job so that they deserved to be payed, but others think different. Other people think people think college athletes shouldn’t be paid since they are supposed to be students while in school and not employees until they reach the professional level. No matter what people think college sports are watched by millions of people and are entertaining to watch and if the athletes are getting paid or not, it shouldn’t take the entertainment and passion that everyone has for each sport. Many people think that college athletes deserve to be paid with all the time they put in into practices, workouts, and traveling for away games while still going to school, up to 60 hours a week, and maintaining the grades they need to have to be able to play.

Remy, D. (2012). Why the New York Times ' Nocera is wrong. NCAA News, 5.

Kids grow up loving to play sports in their free time. They never get paid to play when they are at a young age. They do it for the love of the game and for the need for competition. This is the way that it is in college right now. College athletes compete with all their hearts to be the best they can for their schools. They don’t get paid a cent. It has been a common debate if that is the right way to do it. Should it be that college athletes do not deserve to get paid for playing a sport? It should not be this way. College athletes certainly should get paid to play.

In the world of college athletics there are endless topics discussed daily and most pertain to money. An issue that falls under this category includes the heated debate involving whether or not student athletes should receive money. Many people say student athletes should receive compensation according to their specific needs because they spend so much time earning their scholarship and have no time to work. On the other hand, the stronger argument is student athletes should not be able to acquire additional funds in order to help aid them through college. An athlete knows what he or she is involving themselves in before any money issue is even brought up. Signing a letter of intent shows that

We often forget that playing a sport is not the only way to earn a scholarship. Many students are accepted for exceptional grades, involvement in the band, clubs, or being well rounded. Most of these students just have to study to keep their scholarship, while the athletes have to work hard and be a student. In a competitive market, “workers” are paid according to the value of the output they produce (Heath). It does not seem right that the college journalist can sell their piece to a paper for extra cash, or the local band can play for a few dollars at the bar Saturday night, or the biology major that takes an internship at the school lab can be profitable yet college athletes cannot. Under the NCAA they are not allowed to make any money of their skill. Any college student should be able to endorse products (Wilbon). This is why the idea of going to school for free should not be an argument against paying athletes, because that is not the case and they have earned it.

The question whether “If college athletes should get paid or not?” has been debated for many years. The debate is brought up every year during the NCAA men’s basketball, March Madness competition, and starts again when football season begins. College athletes do provide entertainment for sports fans, but all the benefits that they do receive should limit them from being paid. The benefits student athletes obtain is free tuition, health coverage, and an opened opportunity for their future.