College Athletes: Amateurs or Full Time Employees

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.

Most institutions absorb significant losses each year in order to provide their student-athletes a venue to participate and compete in the sports that they love as they progress toward their ultimate goals of obtaining their college degrees. We should not take this sacrifice by our colleges and universities for granted. Proponents of paying college athletes present their own arguments for their position. Their arguments focus primarily on the monetary aspects of this “business” (United States Sports

There is a strong side to why college athletes should not get paid for playing, but there is a much weaker opposition for the argument that college athletes should be paid. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it sounds empty-headed and upright foolish to believe that college should deserve a contract that will pay them for all the work they have done in sports. A different viewpoint is some athletes need the money to support their families as this was always their motive and the professional leagues may not work out for them due to injuries or poor choices. An intriguing outlook on this scenario “Thirdly, for those who do not plan on playing professionally, college athletics is an avenue for them to receive a free education should they be rewarded a scholarship. Athletes are provided with a free education that allows them to increase their labor supply in non-athletic markets after graduation, without having to bear the typical education costs that other students must pay.”

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

The question of whether or not college athletes should get paid is of heated debate in todays times. While many believe that student athletes are entitled to income, It remains undougtibly a concern of moral interest to universities across the country. This paper is going to explain the pros and cons that come with allowing student athletes the right to receive a salary.

Over the course of the past few decades, college athletics have drastically increased in popularity throughout the United States. Television channels, news stations, and live-stream broadcasting websites have made viewing college sports more accessible. With the increased fan base, many people have debated over the issue of whether college athletes, specifically Division I recruits, should be compensated for their contribution to the university. Intercollegiate sports provide a crucial amount of the institution’s revenue, as well as attract prospective high school students to attend. Yet with this surplus of income, no athletes are compensated for their participation within an athletic program. Written within the National Collegiate Athletic Association rules and regulations, it states that athletes are not allowed to participate in any athletic competition if they have ever been paid, or promised to be paid, by their respective institution (NCAA). This sanction enforced by the NCAA has been a topic of debate for years as many avid sports fans provide key examples of the benefits that paying athletes would have on the school and the environment of college athletics as a whole. As a college athlete myself, I support the other side of the argument, in congruence with the NCAA, because I have first-hand experience with the responsibilities and time-management that a student-athlete at the college level requires.

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.

Over the past 30 years or so college athletics have gained immense popularity and has resulted in an amazing amount of revenues from the NCAA and its Subsidiaries. The debate as to whether college athletes should be paid even beyond their athletic scholarships. While reading this paper it will answer the question as to whether college athletes should be paid by exploring the reasons for and against the payments of these athletes beyond their scholarship.

For about a decade, the debate between whether collegiate athletes should be paid while playing has been contemplated. Now, the focus has moved from all sports to two specific areas, football and men’s basketball. Sprouting from many court cases filed against the NCAA to some ugly sandals dealing with the athletes themselves. In the 2010 – 2011 time frame, this controversy really sparked up chatter; eventually leading the current pled for sport reformation. Our student athletes are the ones who are at the expense here stuck in between this large argument. Over the past 10 years, there has been minor things done for either side and the players themselves have started taking things into their own hands. The year 2010 a total of 7 student

One of the most controversial topics involving the NCAA and college sports is the issue of student athlete compensation. Proponents of paying college athletes say that the student athletes who participate in basketball and football bring in large revenues for their universities, the NCAA, and the networks broadcasting games. Student athletes should not be compensated because most universities do not gain revenue from college athletics, they are being educated, not exploited, and athletes are treated like campus royalty and have far more perks than everyone else. First of all, student-athletes should not be paid because not all universities make a profit from college athletics.

Many others believe that college students should be paid. Athletes bring their schools money (Nocera et al.1). Therefore, many believe that the students should get some of the money that they help bring in. Players are part of the labor source and get nothing. There is no other industry where labor gets nothing. (Nocera et al.1). It is only fair if athletes get paid too. Athletes work hard to do what they do but do not get

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.

Founded almost a century ago to protect students engaging in college athletics, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has been at the forefront in the implementation of its founding principles which largely focus on both academics and athletics excellence (National Collegiate Athletic Association). However, a review of the total earnings made by NCAA and the benefits accorded to the players that make these earnings realizable brings to question whether NCAA truly protects and cares about the livelihood of athletes. In this text, I revisit the issue of whether or not college athletes should be paid. In my opinion, there exists a need to compensate college athletes.

The ongoing debate of the idea whether or not college student athletes should get paid has been dated back to the first intercollegiate competition. This occurred during a series of boat races between two major Ivy League schools, Harvard and Yale University. Similar to today’s world of entertainment, one of the main objectives was to please a sponsor of the boat races. By doing this, Harvard used a non-student as a steersman of the boat to participate in the regatta (Parent, 2004).

Athletics has become a large influence on alumni as they apply for their desired college. The average college environment has a mass glorification of their sports teams and their student athletes, which raises questions: Are student athletes taking away academic importance from colleges? Is college athletics simplifying academics for athletes? Should colleges pay their student athletes to play for extra curricular sports? The reality is that college athletes must remain unpaid in order to preserve the rest of the college environment inside and outside of campus. These amateur athletes, being unpaid, help to build a community of hardworking individuals, reduce the “buying” of players, and fund campus improvements and academic departments.