Athletes Be Paid

He starts by stating the fact that African-Americans make up the majority of the top levels of the three major college sports. Lemmons also points out from a supporting article, by Travis Walton that these particular sports are “the highest revenue-generating sports in college athletics. ”(Lemmons). He even states a risky rhetorical question asking ‘If a majority of these college athletes, who are bringing in staggering amounts of money to these schools were white, would this even be a conversation?’ (Lemmons).

Day in and day out college athletes work endlessly in practice, school and work without any type of reward. Over the past couple of decades universities have attempted to get the NCAA to allow these universities to give student athletes some type of money for their work and dedication. In John Nocera’s NY Times article, “A Way to Start Paying College Athletes,” he uses strong logical reasoning and credible sources to effectively educate his audience. However, he drastically changes his tone when discussing certain ideas, by indirectly calling out those who do not believe in his way of paying college athletes.

Student athletes devote hours of time in universities all around the United States every year. They play many different sports, everything from water polo to football. It is really hard to be a college athlete for many reasons. These athletes play their respected sport multiple times a week, traveling a lot and miss many classes, which makes it much harder for them to take care of the education. The question, “Should college athletes get paid for playing their sport” is asked regularly. This has been a common argument over the last couple of years, and it seems it is here to stay. I wanted to find out what the people at Campbell think about that, so I went around campus and asked people that question. I asked 40 people, 27 said that they should get paid and on the opposite 13 people said that they should not get paid. I think that they should get paid. Athletes put their body on the line and some of them even make a huge amount of money for their schools.

Be that as it may, once the season began up, he couldn't work that employment any longer. We were out and about constantly, even gone for two straight weeks at a certain point. The educators let us do our work from the street, yet the occupation wasn't going to pay you since you were playing ball on a street trip. The group gave us supper cash (about $7 per feast) so we could get chips and fixings with our sandwiches, yet whatever else was viewed as a NCAA infringement.

Ever since college students started playing sports, back in 1879 when Harvard played Yale in the first collegiate sports game, the question of whether college athletes should be paid was addressed. From that point on athletes, coaches, and college administrators have brought forward points agreeing or disagreeing with the notion of paying college students. The students argue that they deserve to be paid due to the revenue that they bring for the college and because of the games they play and the championships they win. At first the idea of paying college athletes was out of the question, but now the argument has gone from a simple yes or no to a heated debate. Since college athletes are given a free education, they should not also be paid.

In 2012, the NCAA earned $871.6 million in revenue (Dirlam), but it is never distributed to the workforce. As it stands, the NCAA forbids college athletes from earning any compensation from participation in college athletics. Scandals surrounding high-profile college football stars who accepted payment for providing autographs have brought to light what is wrong with NCAA policy. Athletes from college football and men’s basketball deserve a piece of the $871.6 million revenue pie. These sports athletes occupy a different role on campus, the role of an employee as well as a student that female and other male athletes do not. Paying athletes’ a full salary for their participation is an extreme solution. Instead, the NCAA can solve the

“If college football (legally) paid their athletes it wouldn't last. The recruiting process would be no more. It would result in one dominant conference for each sport and about two handfuls of dominant teams. The smaller schools in smaller markets would not be able to compete with the big universities resulting in loss of programs for many schools.” Another example is “College is a provided service by each state. College athletes are not professionals and therefore should not be paid. The purpose of going to college is to get the training so you can use it later. That's what the NCAA provides. Athletes play at the college level and they further use that experience at the professional level where they will be paid. Just like everybody else.” Lastly argued “This is easily the biggest dilemma of all and would bring many college

Even though college athletes didn’t make it to the pro’s their education is free (Text 3, line 29). In addition to that, “the marketplace produces a collegiate athletic population that is generally happy with what it gets — a free education and broad sports exposure” (Text 3, Line 39-40). This quote shows that college athletes who doesn’t make it to pro’s get free education and a broad sports exposure which can help them easily get a

Over the past years, There have been so many cases about collegiate athletes being suspended or losing their eligibility to play. When student athletes lose their eligibility they`re forced to stop playing the sport they love the most, even worse they also lose their scholarship. Athletes are getting in trouble for receiving money or some type of gift from boosters. By accepting these type of payment, The athletes violate the NCAA rules. (“Accepting these gifts makes both the athlete and the college look bad. Florida State is investigating Jameis Winston’s connection to James Spence Authentication, the company that was linked to suspended Georgia running back Todd Gurley. It’s reportedly certified 500-plus autographs from Gurley and more than 2,000 from Winston, and we’re all waiting for the proof that they got paid to do so.”) These are few of many athletes that violated the NCAA rules. So the question is should collegiate athletes be paid? In this paper I will show different views on reasons why athletes should be paid and why athletes should receive compensation. I will also show the effects on what paying collegiate athletes can cause.

Student athletes have been disrespected their whole career, even though College athletic is considered a money maker of a business, the athletes don’t even get paid, some say it is because paying them will reduce the amount of competitiveness, some say they aren’t employees so they shouldn’t get paid. Even the full scholarships they are getting has flaws. Overall the colleges are just too greedy.

Intro: Imagine this: full time job, full time college student. Tying to juggle your job and academics at the same time, putting equal time in for each. Then, at the end of the month you didn’t get paid for the work that you were achieving in your job. This is how college athletes are feeling today. Ineffective, useless and unproductive. Many people in the college sports industry are getting paid except for the people who are accomplishing the most, the athletes. They put in the work, time, and effort to their athletics but their academics are being overlooked totally. With so many mixed emotions and laws standing in the way, there has not been as much commotion over this issues as there should be. College athletes should be getting paid because of the work that they are putting into the system, and the results that they are getting out of the game and audience.

Recently, the topic of compensating student athletes has become a popular subject of debate within the media. Deciding whether or not to pay student athletes may seem simple at first glance; however, further research into the debate reveals many economic studies that provide persuasive information benefitting one side over the other. Paying student athletes would be more economically efficient and to not allow payment would be considered price fixing, also this would reduce the negative externalities faced by the student athletes in the future. Although paying players would have economic benefits, it would also have high costs to the fans in the form of higher ticket prices and a loss of competition within college sports. Student athletes should

Posnanski puts a nice spin on showing why athletes don’t deserve money with what they already receive by asking readers rhetorical questions and through sympathizing to their situation. The common argument for why athletes should get paid is that they don’t get compensated for what they make for the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association). Although those in support to this claim most likely are overlooking the fact that many of the athletes are receiving either full ride

A Second argument that supports paying college athletes, is that colleges allow advertisers, arena operators, concession owners, athletic gear manufacturers, retailers, game companies, and media moguls, along with coaches and university officials, to make millions of dollars off of college football players and the college football players received nothing. Student-athletes are prevented from profiting from their name and image. The NCAA makes billions of dollars selling the rights to televise games and selling merchandise and jerseys. Colleges from the Big Ten to the Mid-American Conference ask or require athletes to sign waivers giving up their publicity rights without compensation… (Keilman and Hopkins) Also, these athletes risk their body

Imagine you’ve just graduated a four school and you have crazy debt and you are paying medical bills because you got hurt playing a sport. Which brings the question should College athletes be paid the right the athletes deserve? I believe the athletes should be paid.