College Athletes Should Be Paid Analysis

The average annual salary for division 1 football coaches is $1.64 million. While the highest paid coach is making $7.6 million annually, the student athletes are not paid at all. The NCAA argues that the players are fully compensated because most have full-ride scholarships and are attending the school for free. But, college athletes spend an average of 43.3 hours per week training for their respective sport. So, they spend more time training for their sport than the average American spends working at a full-time job. The NCAA doesn’t even let the athletes advertise themselves. But, if the NCAA did begin legally paying college athletes they would not know where to draw the line. If division 1 athletes

In the sports world you hear the question, should college athletes really get paid? If you read the articles by sports writers, for ESPN and Fox Sports, you hear both sides of the story. One person at ESPN, Michael Wilbon, believes that college athletes deserve to get paid, and here is his reason why “We’re talking $11 billion for three weekends of television per year. On top of that there’s a four-year contract with ESPN that pays the BCS* $500 million, and combined that’s $10 billion, would the games not be televised?” “As Jon Solomon, from CBS Sports pointed out, the NCAA* went to court to settle the debate, should college athletes, in football and basketball, get paid for their image, names and likeliness?”.

The NCAA, both men’s and women’s, basketball tournaments has gained attention of sports fans across the country. Brackets will be busted, nests will be cut down, and champions will be crowned. While these teams are celebrating, they are not the winners of the tournaments, but NCAA itself. The NCAA becomes face to face with billions made off of the talents of the players, while the players don’t see a penny of that profit. I believe all NCAA athletes should be paid “A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work”.

College athletes are taken advantage of on a daily basis. Student athletes have to spend all day in class having to meet vigorous academic requirements well also having to stay competitive in sports. For doing so much you think the NCAA would at least give them some money to live off. When students have no money they are more likely to sell their autographs or take money from boosters. When students accept money from boosters it not only affects the player but it affects the team. Some ways that it affects the whole team is by reducing the amount of scholarships a team can give out that year. It could also affect their college playoff hopes by not allowing them to participate in their college bowl games.

First, Alessi says that college athletes should be paid because they spent most of their time at practices. Alessi adds that a student athlete’s daily schedule is over 10 hours of work; it includes the time one spend for study and practice from before dawn to his or her day’s end. In addition, Alessi states the NCAA has a perfect model of cheap labor. During the season, a student athlete works 43.3 hours per week on average. Furthermore, Alessi claims that the scholarships are still not enough for student athletes in this modern’s economic. I agree with

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.

How have sports changed to the point where there is serious discussion around paying college athletes? Universities and athletic coaches make millions on the backs of their players. So the question is, are our college athletes properly compensated? After reading both articles by Paul Marx and Warren Hartenstine I have come to the conclusion that college athletes should not be compensated beyond their athletic scholarships. Many students are fully compensated for tuition, room and board, books and private tutors. These services are valuable in countless ways. They allow students to pursue both their athletic and academic dreams. Further compensating college athletes would lead to an unfair advantage and is unjust to other students.

Nearly $1 billion dollars is what the NCAA made in 2014 off of sports events and merchandise, and they still will not provide the players with an income. Some say that given the player an education is enough, but it's not anymore because they are making too much money off theses players. Paying college athletes is the right thing to do because it is their money that is being collected, if a player is hurt during a college game then it could make it to where they can’t play professional, or they should be able to take endorsement deals.

A very long debate in college sports is if the athletes should be paid. Author Jared Walch, talks about both sides of the issue, but later in the article it seems he sides with the argument that they should be paid. In the beginning of the article, he talks about why the athletes shouldn’t be paid. Walch first argues that this is all a choice for the athletes. They choose to put themselves in harms way of possible injury and not every athlete gets injured. Another argument that the author discusses is how to pay the athletes. Who pays the athletes and how do you distribute the money? The two programs to bring in the most money are football and men’s basketball. Women’s golf athletes are still college athletes. So even though they don’t make as much money, will they still be paid? Most athletes are already at school for scholarships. If you already have everything paid for by the university, what more would you need paid for? The author later goes into the morality and how paying the athletes would take away some of the entertainment of watching college athletes play. Towards the end of his article, Walch

Why should college athletes be paid? For many people, “pay for play” is a controversial topic. Joe Nocera of the New York Times and Scott Martelle of the Los Angeles Times discuss in the following articles. Nocera wrote an article called “A Way to Start Paying College Athletes.” In the articles he explains both sides of the argument and gives a way to fix the problem. Martelle wrote “Top Tier College Athletes Are Professionals Who Deserve a Bigger Slice of The Pie.” In it he argues his side of the topic. Both of the pieces are trade articles that were published online on their respective company’s site. Nocera’s article is better than Martelle’s because he has better supporting facts and the information is more relevant to my topic.

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.

College athletic programs are among the most popular sporting events in America. With this rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue in recent years. In 2014, the NCAA made over 900 million dollars in revenue. Some collegiate coaches, such as Kentucky’s John Calipari, have yearly salaries in the millions, not counting incentives and endorsement deals. While, clearly, money is being made, NCAA regulations ban collegiate athletes from being paid. Many question this rule and argue that athletes at the college level earn and deserve pay for play. The debate to pay or not to pay college athletes rages on despite the latest court ruling supporting NCAA policies. Because colleges and universities earn such a profit from sporting events, many fans feel it is only fair to distribute some of the wealth to the players. Supporters of paying student athletes feel that these young men and women should be fairly compensated for the time demanded of the athletes and the stress put on the athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Those in favor of paying college athletes contend that athletic and academic work ethic at both high school and collegiate levels will improve, as well as, fiscal responsibility in these young adults. The NCAA argues that paying athletes would negatively affect their

Throughout my high school athletic career, playing both football and running cross country, i’ve witnessed multiple teammates of mine receive scholarships to continue their athletic and academic careers at a university. However due to the disproportionate number of hours spent on the sport rather than academics without receiving compensation is causing many high school athletes to turn down athletic scholarships and instead begin to focus on their academic futures.

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 NCAA is a multi-billion dollar industry that generated over $845 billion last year due to their players’ ability to entertain and perform to their fullest extent at all times. So with all of this money flowing in, why wouldn’t they provide their athletes a stipend? Well that’s a question that today baffles many. What they basically have in place is a corporation that makes tons of money and, oh yeah, they don’t have to pay their employees. Sounds like the perfect business model right? What has continued to be one of the most pressing issues in the world of sports today has now become a matter the NCAA can no longer afford to ignore. The service that college athletes provide to the institutions they attend in addition to millions of spectators all over the world is still not being rewarded in the manner that it should be for their above-average dedication, work ethic, and most importantly money brought in to their employer.