Large Salaries of Pro Athletes Negative Effects on Athletes and Sports

In the article “A Way to Start Paying College Atheletes”, Joe Nocera wrote about the inequalities faced by the college football players . He was compelled to began writing more frequently about how the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the college sports decisions exploit the players who generates the billions that the leaders takes advantage of. A powerful debate developed about how to pay the college athelete, a free -market approach was established by Jay Bilas, the ESPN college basketball analyst. He said that Student athelete should profit from whatever the market will bear. Some people uphold the the so-called Olympic model, in which players would generate income from endorsements, autographs, jobs and control

Yes, Athletes get paid too much money. Accordingly to the article,from LeBron James making 71 million dollars and the President does not make as much money as LeBron James. Nurses, and other people who save lives do not make as much money as LeBron James.

In Joe Nocera’s article, “Let’s Start Paying College Athletes”, he argues that college athletes should be paid for playing sports. Nocera begins his article by providing an example of how some athletes will receive money that is perfectly fine while other athletes cannot accept any money or else that player will be in violation of NCAA rules. It’s evident that there are large amounts of money involved in the college sports. Top college coaches can make as much or more than professional coaches. Together with men’s basketball, College football have become huge commercial enterprises generating huge amounts of annual revenue (Nocera, 2011).

There has been a lot of talk about college-athletes for the past couple of years in America. One of the biggest question is if college-athletes should get paid to play or not? This topic obviously has two sides to it. One side people are pushing the idea of paying these college-athletes thousands of dollars to play that sport. On the other side people are not liking the idea of paying student-athletes to play that sport and they’re only in college. This paper will examine whether or not paying student-athletes is a good idea or a bad idea. This document will support the fact the student-athletes should not get paid to play any sports at any college level. This document will only follow football but will have the same effect on other sports. Their will be three main points for this discussion. First being that college students are too young and immature. Next point will show some profession players that really fall under these categories. The last point will show some of the reasons why people think they should get paid. If a student plays a college sport, this is their time to develop their skills and only professionals should get paid.

Over the decades, Division I college athletes have been pouring their heart and soul into the game they love. Their passion for sports has allowed them to attend and play for a university of their choice. College sports is similar to a business, especially at the Division I level and the athlete’s job is to bring profit and revenue to their school. In recent years, there has been an ongoing conflict in collegiate athletics: should college athletes get paid? In this essay, I will discuss the effects of paying college athletes, and reveal on how much each athlete is really receiving.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is one of the biggest sports organizations in the United States. One of the most divisive issues relating to the NCAA over the last several years has been the issue of athlete compensation. There are many sports—particularly football and basketball—that bring in incredible amounts of revenue to colleges across the country; therefore, whether or not athletes should be compensated for their role in college sports has become a topic of debate. While scholarship athletes are already compensated by their access to tutors, meals and a free education, the concept of the student-athlete has deteriorated over time and thus athletes should be able to make money by signing autographs or making public appearances while they are in school. In addition, the big four American professional sports do not give amateurs an opportunity to play aside from Major League Baseball, which funnels athletes to college sports and in turn ushers them into a place where they cannot profit from their athletic ability. The issue is clearly a complex and unethical one. It would be difficult for schools to pay athletes fairly as certain sports would appear entitled to more money based on profitability; however, players should undoubtedly be able to benefit from their athletic prowess by selling merchandise and profiting from their stature in general. The NCAA’s stance hindering players’ ability to sell autographs and other memorabilia is just as important to this

Many college athletes have trouble with their money throughout their college lives. One of the main reasons that colleges don’t want to pay their athletes is because they think that they won’t use the money efficiently. “The debate over paying college athletes ignores the fact that they are already paid. The real question is, should they be paid more?” (Sack).

The popularity of college athletics have risen immensely over the past few years. The idea of paying college football athletes has been a continuous debate since the early 1900’s. This paper will debate whether college athletes should be paid a monetary compensation outside of their scholarships. This will be done by examining reasons for and against the monetary revenue for the athletes.

In the recent past, college athletics has gained massive fame in the United States. The immense fame of the college athletics has developed over the past twenty years. The massive development and fame of the college athletics have resulted in improved incomes for the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA). Due to increased revenue received by the NCAA, the participates in athletics in the colleges has fuelled the argument of whether the college athletes need to be paid and rewarded more than just the athletic scholarships. In this research paper, I will take a stab at to respond the question whether they should be paid by delving the explanations for and against the payment of the college athletes (Adams and Becky 108).

College athletes should be paid to play and schools need to consider compensating these athletes for their talents based on the revenue they generate. Given the fact college sports is a big money maker for many universities and colleges, Kenneth Cooper, author of the article, “Should College Athletes be Paid to Play”?, argues that “college athletes should not be paid due to the fact they are still amateurs who are representatives of the schools they attend” (Cooper). Additional arguments made by Cooper against paying the athletes, include the fact that “these men and women are not just athletes, but students first” (Cooper). From my point of view, this statement would be true only if the emphasis were realistically placed on academics. Therefore,

"Elite College Athletes Should Be Paid: Economists." Vanderbilt Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2015. .

Many people enjoy the competitiveness of collegiate athletics and the universities themselves love the amount of revenue it brings in each year. With the crowd going wild throughout the game and the passion athletes show, it’s a pastime that is rarely boring. A common discussion is if college athletes should be paid. College football and basketball generates 6 billion dollars annually. Which in total is more than the National Basketball Association (Brill 1). These athletes are practically working full time to improve in and out of season. They are putting their bodies on the line during game time too often to later in life compensated. Major injuries aren’t always the ones you get immediately. Down the road when athletes are adults their

All around the world sports are the topic of discussion, both teams and athletes bring forth millions of viewers to see what a sports team is made up of. College is where a student gets the opportunity to shine. If a college athlete possesses a significant amount of talent they have the potential to become a professional. At a college level, students don’t receive payment; regardless of what level an athlete is on, when an individual has a natural talent the individual should be paid for doing what he is good at. This idea of not paying student athletes needs to change because these student athletes have become involved in a craft and deserve compensation for their involvement. Three key elements that is discussed in this essay will give probable cause for athletes to be compensated. The three factors that are analyzed in this essay is the commitment of time that a player sets into his or her sport, the large debt accumulated while in school, and the amount of money colleges earn through student athletes. All three aspects are valid reasons as to why colleges must start paying their athletes.

Are elite athletes/sports men or women being paid too much if not how are there high salaries justified, if so, why, and how could there money be put to better use?