College Athletes Are Being Consumed By The World Of College Athletics

Since the inception of high profile intercollegiate athletics, there has been a debate regarding the place of athletics within the structure of higher education. Within the last few decades, this debate has intensified as intercollegiate athletics has transformed into a multi-billion dollar industry that shifted the way athletic departments operate. College athletic departments have been able to generate millions of dollars in revenue through corporate partnerships, television contracts, alumni and donor support, and ticket sales (Toma, 2003). Specifically, this athletic revenue is primarily generated by football and basketball programs. College athletics has entered the “show business phase as football and basketball have evolved into commercial entertainment products (Duderstadt, p.69).” As the commercialization of collegiate athletics continue grow, the concept of student-athlete amateurism has become increasingly strained as there has been a push for providing student-athletes, specifically in football and basketball, additional compensation for their play.

As the years have gone by and college sports attract larger crowds and generate more money, the question arises of whether or not star college athletes should be paid. The NCAA currently prohibits college athletes from receiving payment of any kind from the schools, boosters or endorsements. This is a hot topic in society because many consider the athletes to be “working” for the money only the school is receiving. However, some argue that there is a need for amateurism. In college sports, athletes work hard, but they should not get paid because the college part of the sports is what makes the money, not the athletes.

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

If you have ever wondered why college athletes are not paid, you are not alone. If you are a sports nut, then you may have even gotten into arguments over the topic. Economic experts do not seem to agree either. If you listen to each side of the argument the answer seems gray, but if you look at the evidence the answer may become clearer. The National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) should pay Division I student-athletes who participate in men’s basketball and football, because of the amount of money they accumulate for the school and NCAA, because the sport they are a part of is a full time job, and also because many student-athletes struggle financially.

Howard Chudacoff raises the controversial question of whether or not college athletes should be paid during a time of the year when people are most focused on college athletics, March Madness. Chudacoff is a firm believer that college athletes are given enough amenities as it is and do not deserve extra compensation or paychecks. His main arguments to support his position revolve around the royalties that power five athletes receive in regards to education centers, training facilities, and the fact that these players receive a free education. Chudacoff paints the picture of these facilities throughout his article and appeals to the reader’s pathos by descriptively showing the reader how college athletes really do live like millionaires.

Thesis: As the popularity, and revenue continues to grow in college sports, the debate will be taken to new heights about whether or not college athletes are being exploited, and if they should be compensated monetarily.

There has been a lot of controversy on whether colleges should be paying the paying their athletes. Brian Frederick, a board member of Sports Fan Coalition and an adjunct professor for Georgetown University’s Sport Industry Management Program, believes colleges have a broken system when it comes to athletes. Frederick’s contemptuous tone discredits sports fan, who believe college athletes already get paid enough with their education, by stating “If a student athlete is hurt or unsuccessful, the coaches and administrators suddenly discard the noble ideals of “education” and a player is left with nothing.” With the use of metaphors and similes, Frederick convinces sport fans to take action and make the calls in order to continue college athletics

With the passing of another academic year, fans were able to enjoy yet another nail-biting NCAA Basketball Tournament and a highlight filled football season. Most would agree that the NCAA provides competitive sport as popular as the professionals. In fact, its annual revenue makes that point clear. College football and basketball generate more than the National Basketball Association, a total of more than $6 billion yearly.[1] There is one major difference between the two associations, however. NBA players get paid for the revenue they help bring in, while NCAA athletes receive no monetary compensation. The promise of a free education is not enough anymore if the NCAA wants to act as a money making business, and not reward those who help make it profitable. If the NCAA does not want to pay college athletes, than it should not hold these players back from entering the professional game. However, colluding with the NBA and the NFL, athletes are restricted when it comes to joining the pro ranks. With these two ideas combined, athletes are drawn to the college game out of necessity, and not always desire. Some writers, like Stanley Eitzen, have even compared the system to indentured servitude or a “plantation system.”[2] Concerning the revenue sports of men’s basketball and football, the players should be entitled to some monetary compensation for their work, as well as the right to enter the professional leagues at an age that suits their abilities.

Imagine this you wake up at 7:45 am Monday morning so that you can make it to work (in this case practice) by 8:30 am you start your day with demanding labor. That ends around 1:30pm after you head to the weight room for an hour and a half to better yourself. You’ve trained your body now it is time to train your mind so you study for 2 hours. Your day began at 7:45 so you’re exhausted you decide to grab some dinner and go to bed. This is the routine college athletes go through every day and that is not accounting for their schooling. Let’s face it there is no time for work in that already packed schedule, so how do college athletes get money to survive. They can’t work, many come from rough backgrounds, and nobody cares, which is not acceptable when you look at the amount of money college athletes bring to their respective universities. Big time college athletes deserve to be paid in compensation for their time and abilities that they give to colleges. When you look at the capital that is generated from division 1 sports there is room to pay the athletes something to help them get through college.

Over the past few decades college sports has grown in popularity across the United States. But it hasn’t been until recent years that many Americans have started to argue about the big revenues generated by many of the elite sports programs. However the big question that stands out is: should the athletes generating millions of dollars worth of profit a year for their University receive any of the money for their performance? Even though student athletes don’t receive a big paycheck at the end of the month, in one way or the other they do receive rewarding benefits through scholarships and grants because of their ability to be successful on the playing field. Thus, college athletes should not be paid because they are receiving a free education through scholarships and earning countless other benefits for being part of the university’s athletic program.

But if a student-athlete comes from a background without those resources, then the student definitely could benefit more from extra money given to them by the university. After writing this essay, I’ve realized that I do not favor either side of the issue, and the main reason is that there are too many variables to come up with one solid solution. Going into the essay, I didn’t realize that all these variables even existed. I’m sure that this issue will be debated on for some time, and I will continue to look for new ways to address this issue, but for the time being, I do not have a strong opinion on college athletes being paid or

College athletes make billions for their schools, but only get a scholarships in return. Adele Birkenes, a fellow student states that “College football and men’s basketball generate revenues of more than $6 billion every year. Yet not one penny goes toward paying the people who make the sports possible: the student athletes.” (7) With the long practices the athletes put in, and all of the game film they have to watch on top of their homework, it is like doing two jobs at once and they should get more than a scholarship in return. The players will be left with something after college instead of just a ring or a goodbye. (Pay to

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

Some people believe that college athletes should be paid due to a concern of exploitation. However most college athletes are already compensated for their athletics with scholarships and countless benefits. They already receive significant scholarships worth upwards of “$50,000 per year” at some of the most highly regarded education institutions in the nation (Text

The situation plaguing college athletics is whether or not college athletes deserve to be paid for their performance. The situation outlined in the article describes a power struggle among the NCAA and the players that are held accountable under their domain. Colleges and their sports programs make extreme profits throughout the year, while their players make nothing in exchange for their profitability. College athletes are starting to realize that they are receiving the short end of the stick, while the NCAA continues to argue that they offer education and a platform to display talents. USA Today offers many suggestions as to why this conflict has not been resolved to this point, and gives many convincing examples as to why the conflict must