In 2013, a new documentary called Schooled: the price of college sports came to Netflix. The documentary contains research and interviews with many important people in the world today. As a mainly one sided documentary, all the interviewees argue the answer to the question “Is it permissible to run a league with athletes that don’t get payed?” The documentary uses ethos, pathos and logos in order to persuade the viewers that NCAA athletes should not be considered amateurs and should also be payed. The definition of amateur is one who engages in an art, science, study or athletic activity as a past time rather than as a profession. The word amateur, and it’s meaning is one of many ways the documentary uses ethos in this documentary. Each year, the NCAA generates billions of dollars through ticket sales, video games, and …show more content…
The corruption expressed throughout the hour long documentary is endless examples of ethos which is the majority used in the documentary. Corruption in the NCAA is not only a current issue but has existed dating back to the 1940’s. In the 1940’s and 1950’s ivy league schools used to secretly pay players in order to attract top talent in the country. After more and more illegal salaries came into play, the scholarship was invented in order to stop the corrupt system and give the players more of a reward. The NCAA is technically a nonprofit organization, however generated billions of dollars each year, needless to say that it is and has always been a business. Many factors come into play on how the NCAA became what it is today such as the introduction of televising games live in the 1940’s and Nike getting involved in the 1980’s buying their way into the NCAA and paying coaches to put their teams in Nike gear. All of this is not close to the amount of revenue generated specifically off of the student
The NCAA has been around and evolved since the beginning of college sports. This organization is a non-profitable organization, but ironically makes more than millions of profit per year. Branch states “that money comes from a combination of ticket sales, concession sales, merchandise, licensing fees, and other sources—but the great bulk of it comes from television contract”(pg. 228). Meanwhile, the student-athletes do not receive any of this money. This is the start of an unsubstantial business between universities built around amateurism.
The article responds to the debate about if college athletes should be paid on top of their scholarships/benefits. Critics of college sports argue that these student athletes are being exploited because it is possible for schools to generate revenue from TV contracts and other beneficial arrangements. Ackerman and Scott, both commissioners of a conference/sport, respond by stating “College is a time from learning, and college sports provide young men and women alike a chance to learn, grow, graduate, and achieve great things in life.” The purpose of this article is to educate the audience, critics of
Not only do the players play hard for the school, but they also have the potential to earn money through commercial signings and endorsements by third party sponsors. The NCAA should lift the “Principle of Amateurism” and establish a newer one that resembles the one of the Olympics. The Olympics’ amateur model resembles the NCAA’s “Principle of Amateurism” except for the fact that they do not have restrictions on commercial opportunities such as
With the universities pulling in more than twelve billion dollars, the rate of growth for college athletics surpasses companies like McDonalds and Chevron (Finkel, 2013). The athletes claim they are making all the money, but do not see a dime of this revenue. The age-old notion that the collegiate athletes are amateurs and students, binds them into not being paid by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). This pay for play discussion has been talked about since the early 1900s but recently large steps are being made to actually make a change. There are many perspectives on the payment of collegiate student athletes coming from the NCAA, the athletes themselves, and the university officials.
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
The popularity of college sports and its value to entertainment is skyrocketing. The NCAA is the head organization in control of a hundred billion dollar industry. The disgusting disparity arrives at the difference between what
The magnitude of the controversy to pay college athletes has intensified over the past few years. It might be due to the prevailing economic atmosphere causing everyone, including aspiring athletes, to look for new ways to make money. It might also be due to many higher educational facilities giving the public access to their annual budget, causing outsiders to focus on the profit of specific athletic programs. However, it might also be due to the coaches’ outrageous salaries and the money that universities make from bowl games and basketball tournaments. Regardless, this has intensified the fact that athletes see none of these profits and this is what implores the simple question of “where is my portion?”
With college basketball and football originating in the 1800’s, the game has had much time to adapt. Over the years, the sports have become more and more popular, gaining a bigger fan base, which has resulted in substantial profits from the sale of merchandise representing the teams and players. There is one thing that has not changed; all of the athletes are still not being paid. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, or NCAA, is an organization that regulates most aspects of
Since its inception in 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, commonly known as simply the NCAA, has pondered the burning question of whether student-athletes should be compensated for their play. Currently, the NCAA employs an amateurism policy, an eligibility regulation that all potential Division I athletes must abide by to participate in their respective sports. This set of rules prohibits players from receiving any form of compensation, whether that be as a result of participating in a sport, being awarded prize money, or signing with an agent. Athletes are allowed to accept financial aid administered by the university, but this generally small subsidy for education is accompanied with uncertainty, and is the only form of “payment” they are permitted to collect. However, there is sufficient evidence that college athletes should be paid as compensation for the money they make for the NCAA, the negative effects that sports have on the players ' lives, the benefits that the sports bring to the school, and for the potential profits missed on social media because of NCAA regulations.
Throughout the years college sports have been about the love of the game, filled with adrenaline moments. However, the following question still remains: Should college athletes get paid to play sports in college? Seemingly, this debate has been endless, yet the questions have gone unanswered. The National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) plays a vital role in this debate. The NCAA is a billion dollar industry, but yet sees that the athlete should get paid for their hard work and dedication.
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.
Over the last several years, college athletics have gained monumental popularity in the United States. With the rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue. Some college athletic programs have revenue in the millions. Yet with this large sum of money, no college athletes are legally compensated for their work. According to NCAA rules, “You are not eligible for participation in a sport if you have ever: Taken pay, or the promise of pay, for competing in that sport” (NCAA Regulations 1).
Standing at the helm of college sports is the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), a non-profit organization that regulates college athletic programs to ensure the safety and well-being of student-athletes (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2015). Founded in 1906, the NCAA has grown to be one of the largest tax-exempt organization in the U.S., generating more than $800 million dollars each year (Treadway, 2013). Because of the NCAA’s substantial revenue, student-athlete advocates, players, observers, and even some coaches have begun to question whether players are being paid a just wage for their work.
Despite devoting “forty to sixty hours per week to their sport most of the year, which is more than many full-time jobs, Division I football players aren’t considered employees and lack basic economic rights under the NCAA’s cartel restrictions” (Johnson). The NCAA made “$912.8 million dollars last year and are now poised to top the eye-popping mark of $1 billion in annual revenue” (Clotfelter). These types of figures prove that revisions must be made when it comes to paying student athletes. To be clear, “student athletes do not need salaries or monthly paychecks, even though the NCAA runs just like any other professional sports league” (Johnson). Rather than, they should simply be allowed to live within their means like anyone else in America.
As of today, there are over 460,000 NCAA student-athletes that compete in 24 different sports while in college throughout the United States (NCAA). Over the past couple decades, the argument for paying these college athletes has gained steam and is a hot topic in the sports community. However, paying these college athletes is not feasible because most universities do not generate enough revenue to provide them with a salary and some even lose money from the sports programs. These collegiate student-athletes are amateurs and paying them would ruin the meaning of college athletics. Also, playing college sports is a choice and a privilege with no mention or guarantee of a salary besides a full-ride scholarship. Although some argue that