Marc Edelman The Case For Paying College Athletes Summary

Griffin, Geoff,  Should College Athletes Be Paid? Greenhaven Press. Farmington Hills, MI:    2008. Charles H. Hammer, Walter Byers. Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Exploiting College Athletes.

The NCAA or the National Collegiate Athletic Association in its 2014 total fiscal revenue collection data racked up a whopping $989 million dollars, nearly reaching a billion dollars according to USA Today Sports in article done by Steve Berkowitz. The biggest revenue earners in NCAA sports are men’s college football and basketball, with those two sports alone making $166 million alone. In addition to that $166 million, the television revenues from viewers, ticket sales, and merchandise purchases add another surplus of hundreds of millions of dollars unaccounted for. At times going respectfully to the university as their profit, where for example a standalone college like Texas A&M in the year 2014-2015 generated a total revenue of $192 million itself, which factored in ticket sales, rights/licensing to the team’s name, contributions, and other sources of revenue, according to USA

With debate on whether or not to compensate the college athletes in monetary terms due to the students’ sports talents help their various colleges to receive awards both rewards and cash money, it is important to look at criticisms of the National Collegiate Athletic Association with regards to the association’s advertisement deals of approximately more than a billion shillings profits yet no athlete is being compensated for his or her hard work. That according to Zimbalist (2013) is because the critiques are using the very developments to argue in favour of the payment of the student athletes since the opportunity for education and exposure to earn a professional contract is enough compensation since the cost of paying the student athletes would be too high.

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.

The authors begin the article discussing the creation of the NCAA and how they came to the creation of their amateurism laws, providing a background to as to why college athletes are not allowed to receive any form of monetary payment. Johnson and Acquaviva then present five arguments as to why college athletes should not be compensated. These arguments are that athletes are being paid with their education, new issues would arise with fair pay if college athletes were compensated, college athletes are receiving more than just an education, paying college athletes would eliminate competition, and that college athletes already know what to expect when they sign to play for a university. The authors then provide counter arguments that help to prove that college athletes should be paid for their play. These are that the cost of living is not covered in college scholarships, college athletes don’t understand that they will be set aside if they are injured or benched, and college athletes do not receive more than an education due to their full schedules. The authors then explain some of the plans that could help to fairly compensate college athletes, such as allowing them to receive endorsement deals. Finally, Johnson and

Many different people brought up that collegiate athletes deserve to be paid. The number one supporters of paying the athletes are the athletes themselves. Each athlete dedicates over twenty hours a week just for the sport and don’t earn anything for it (Entman). The only person that truly statistically benefits is the coaches because their pay salries are based on the team’s performance. The college athletes sometimes feel used because other people and organizations are profiting by using these athete’s

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) makes roughly $1 billion in income annually and the athletes do not receive any of it. This topic has been debated for many years and is still being debated. The debate dates back to the 1980s and now athletes are demanding that they deserve to be paid since profits are made off of them. Some athletes such as former and current basketball and football players came together with lawsuits to federal courts asking for rewards from profits NCAA makes gets of them. Research has opened several different opinions on this matter. There are many pros and cons for paying college athletes. College sports provide a huge source of the university’s income. The athletes, however, receive their scholarship

Marc Edelman is firm believer that college athletes deserve the right to get paid without any issues involving taxing scholarships. Edelman states as his thesis, “This movement to allow athletes to share in the revenues of college sports arises from the belief that college athletes sacrifice too much time, personal autonomy, and physical health to justify their lack of pay” (1139). He supports his claim with facts about the amount of revenue college athletics brings into a school. “The college sports industry represents a more than eleven billion-dollar U.S. enterprise” (Edelman 1141). Without athletes, there would be no revenue coming in so athletes deserve a portion of the revenue. He also supports the devotion to the spot by stating, “In these sports, the star athletes devote upwards of forty hours per week to team travel, play, and practice” (Edelman 1141). The amount of time put into the specific sport is equivalent to a normal week of work. Another key point expressed is

One of the most controversial subjects we as individuals hear about this day in age is whether or not college athletes deserve to be paid. Many people argue that these athletes do intact, deserve to be paid for their time and hard work. NCAA athletes create a name for themselves by playing and performing well on their college teams. The better these athletes perform, the more publicity the school revives. This then leads to higher ticket sales and stores around campus selling jerseys and other clothing items with athletes names and numbers on the back. NCAA schools have become comfortable with using athletes’ names to bring in a revenue for the school, and yet the athletes never see any of that money. On the other hand, many people believe that these athletes do not deserve, nor should they expect to receive payment in return. They believe that these scholarships and the education are payment in itself. Some even bring up the question on if it is affordable or even realistic to pay college 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.

Whether or not student-athletes should be paid has been a hotly debated topic since the 1900s. College athletes spend just as much time, if not more time, practicing and devoting time and energy to sports as they do academics. For this, many athletes are rewarded with scholarship money. However, many people believe it is not enough. Should we pay student-athletes a slice of the wealth or is a full-ride scholarship enough? (Business Insider). What if the athlete gets injured? Where does the money come out of to support each athlete’s salary? The huge amount of money being generated from college sports has led some people to think that the athletes are entitled to some of that revenue. While, some think that student-athletes should be paid, others disagree for various reasons.

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.

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

Kristi Dosh and Mark Cassell have contrasting opinions about compensation of college athletes. Dosh’s opinion is that college athletes should not be paid because there are problems associated with it. She inquires, “The first question I ask people when they say college athletes should be paid is: where is the money going to come from?” (477). She exposed only a few colleges are turning a net profit. She mentions that paying athletes who are mostly male could cause issue with federal laws like the

Most student-athletes playing a sport in college are there on an athletic scholarship. The scholarship is granted to them by their respective schools and is worth anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000. According to Edelman, the football program alone at University of Alabama brought in roughly 143.3 million dollars of revenue. In perspective, that’s about 2 million per player. Even though Alabama is an elite program and brings in more than the average football program, the NCAA brought in nearly $845 billion in 2011 per Sonny. Now it is obvious there many ways a university brings in revenue, but it is safe to say that a player is worth more than that $100,000 scholarship. In fact, a substantial share of college sports’ revenues stay in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches. Now think about what college athletics would be without the world class athletes it has today, or without any athletes at all. If a school didn’t “award” athletes these scholarships, there would be