March 29, 2012 English 112 (B) Research Paper 1 Should We Pay College Athletes? Should we pay college athletes? That is a big topic in NCAA sports right now. People think that college athletes work hard and that they deserve to get paid. Michael Wilbon is one of these people. At first he was against paying college athletes, but now he is all for it. He says that he is interested in seeing the people that make revenue share a little piece of it. Then you have people like a reporter from the Daily Evergreen. He is against paying the athletes. He states that when you are a student athlete it is student first and athlete second, and that if you start paying college athletes it will put being an athlete first. I strongly think that …show more content…
The competition would disintegrate. Take a look at professional baseball for example. The highest paid team in the Majors is the New York Yankees, and they are also the best. The lowest paid team is the Kansas City Royals, and they are the worst team in baseball. New York has money to buy the best players out there, while the Royals don’t. They can’t get good players because of their budget. This is exactly what would happen if college athletes got paid. The college with the highest budget would get the best players in the country, while the college with the worst budget wouldn’t be able to get good players. This will make the same teams good and the same teams bad year in and year out. It would take all the competition away. The third and final reason that paying college athletes is a bad choice is that it would take away scholarships. Think about it, you are already paying college athletes to play by giving them scholarships. Why would you need to pay them more to play if they have a scholarship already? You wouldn’t. Which means that scholarships would be gone all together and that’s not fair to everyone else? What about the people that are non-athletes? They wouldn’t be able to get scholarships because they don’t play sports. This would cause the student population to decrease. Lots of people can’t afford to go to the colleges they go to. The only reason they can go is because scholarships allow them to. It’s not right to
The opponents of paying athletes also believe that paying student-athletes will force schools to cut certain programs, or the schools won’t even be able to pay at all. Most people in our world have to pay for college, while these few and rare individuals get to go to expensive places for free. “These athletes… full tuition paid for, or at least significantly discounted. Billions are given to athletes each year… the average athletic scholarship at a school actually exceeds the school’s tuition…. consider Ohio State…
Do you know that only 1.6% of college football players make it to the NFL? Less than 1% make it to the NBA, and only 10.5% make it to the MBL. All of these athletes could be enjoying their weekends at home, they don’t have time for a job to make extra money, and they miss family holidays and events for games. College athletes should get paid.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was founded by President Roosevelt in 1905. The college organization was first recognized as a league, the NCAA committed to the idea of not providing athletes’ with a salary who took part in the organization. The NCAA is based off the idea of amateurism, and this was a notable idea at the time. According to U.S. News, the NCAA is no longer compatible to what the league use to be. The NCAA brings around around eleven billion every year for the organization as a whole (“Should NCAA Athletes Be Paid?”). Coaches and administrators make a large sum of money, but the players receive no monetary compensation they seem to be the main focus of college sports, Without the athletes there is no NCAA league.
Student’s grade would drop if they paid college athletes because all they would worry about was the sport so they could go to the next level and get paid. The athlete would just worry about the sport and nothing else, for they would stop interacting with people and just about the sport. The athlete in college wouldn’t fill their degree because they would always be doing sports and trying to get better at that sport. The college would have to lower the salary of the teachers just to pay for the athlete even tho the education is more import than the sport. Not everyone can make it to the next level, you have to be good at the sport you are in to make it to the next level. Also, some people would feel back because they didn’t make it to the next level to get paid. If they were paid they would try and say at that level because when you get to the level after college called the NFL only the best of the best players make it. In order to play sports in college, you have to have good grades you could be good at sports but not so good at school, so you wouldn’t be able to play sports. Only 7% of high athletes make it to college sports and out of that 7%, only 2% make it to Division
According to Brian Frederick, "College athletes are just as much of a big business as professional sports. It's just that the money goes into the pockets of coaches." In other words, College games get just as much money as the professional games. The only difference is that all the money goes to the coaches instead of the players. Another way to look at this is, why should we pay pros but not college player if the games are getting about the same amount of money? According to Brian Frederick, "The current system leads to corruption as coaches and boosters regularly find ways to circumvent the rules and provide benefits to young athletes." This means that with the current system college sports have, coaches and boosters are always finding ways to cheat the system and benefit young players. If we don't start paying college players, coaches will continue to circumvent the system and benefit players. Altogether, NCAA athletes should be paid because people think that college sports are simpler, but their
As students sign a pay-to-play agreement with their college, the college makes loads of money from the athletes’ performances; meanwhile, the athlete is said to lose their education. Paying college athletes will take away from their learning through college (Proquest Staff). Although critics believe that paying athletes will forfeit the student’s education, this is not the case. While athletes practice for countless hours to hone in on their athletic abilities, many are already missing out on an education. Athletes miss school for games; for example, March Madness. College basketball players are out performing for our entertainment, without anytime for education. Paying athletes has nothing to do with their education; the amount of time the student has determines how much of the education they receive. Therefore, in no way does paying college athletes affect the amount of education they receive. On the other hand, some critics bicker that colleges do collect millions of dollars in revenue, but come out of it with little to no profit. Not all colleges are profitable. Just 22 schools profited from football in 2009-2010 (“Issues & Controversies On File”). Many schools are in a financial slump when it comes to the athletic departments, but the majority of schools easily have enough money to pay their athletes. In conclusion, critics fear
“From 1992 to 1996 the University of Michigan had a group of five young men known as the “Fab Five”, and their star player was Chris Webber. Throughout all four years they made millions of dollars for their athletic department as well as for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), but while doing so they somehow seemed to be making a large amount of money themselves. The public did not want to believe they could be taking part in gambling as Chris Webber would talk about how he did not have enough money to buy even a Big Mac from the dollar menu at McDonalds, so when the “Fab Five” would show up to practice in their new cars, fancy clothes, and gaudy jewelry, the public would not take notice. Because the public tends to take pity on the poor college athlete struggling to pay for food they instead took his side and agreed college athletes should somehow be reimbursed believing they had done nothing wrong. Eventually the truth came out that Chris Webber and his teammates had received thousands from Ed Martin, a big gambler in Michigan who made thousands, and he was arrested for money laundering. Along with that came speculation that Webber and his teammates had also taken place in “point shaving”, although never proven it was never forgotten. (Torr, 64-65) The NCAAs’ reasons for not paying athletes are as followed, the NCAA feels college athletes are still considered amateurs, athletes number one priority on college should be focusing on his or
Only 2% are drafted into the NFL for instance, while the other 98% are getting a $200,000 education for free. There are eighty scholarship players on each of the 112 Division 1-A teams. This costs a university $16,000,000 to pay for an entire roster over four years (1 “College Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid”). With all of that money being thrown around, it would be difficult for a college to determine which athlete gets paid how much, and if one sport deserves to get paid more than another.
Since 1906 When Theodore Roosevelt established the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to infose and make rule for intercollegiate sports. The NCAA had made billions of dollars out of college athletic increasing popularity. This has fuelled debates whether college athletes should be compensated beyond their athletic scholarship and how and who would do it.
Should College Athletes Be Paid? (Final Revision) College sports are a big part of American culture. I along with many other people watch college sports.
Throughout history the big question surrounding the college athletic industry is if college athletes should get paid for the participation in the sport. It has recently over the past few years been brought up as a huge topic in college athletics, a lot of people have their views in if they should or shouldn’t. The big picture everyone has to look at and get an understanding to be the economic aspect of it. There are a lot of factors that people fail to realize that involve paying these athletes such as the supply, demand elasticity, taxes and equity vs efficiency, all of these play a minor role in the impact of the answer people are waiting to get. In my opinion I feel as an athlete myself I feel we should get paid for playing sports. But
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.
In America sports wherever there is people, there will also be sports. Sports have played a major role in American history. To some people sports is all they have. It is just the way that things are. The issue in sports now is that the NCAA exploit the sports world and the very backbone of the corporation is the poorest. It is an issue that has been around for quite some time now. The issue is that the sports world face is the fact that college athletes are not paid, although they perform in a multibillion dollar industry. The NCAA basically has a monopoly on college athletics, and generate about one billion dollars a year. College sports are extremely demanding both in and out of season, and these athletes put their future on the line. The NCAA should be legally obligated to compensate athletes, based solely on the fact that the money made, is from their performance.
College athletes should be paid. The athletes put in as much work as the people who do get paid. Why should they not be paid? There are many pros for why they should get paid, but there are also many cons on why they should not get paid. The athletes should get paid because of how hard they work in season and the off-season. Do not pay all of the athletes, but pay the ones who are at a D1 college. The athletes should get paid because they put in the same amount of time as the pros do, and the pros get paid.
Have you paid attention to all of the news that has been surfacing about collegiate sports lately? It is a big topic now days in the world of sports on weather college athletes should be getting paid to play sports. College athletics have gained great popularity of the past few decades, and have brought schools lots of revenue. A lot of college athletes think they should be getting paid for their services they do for their school. College sports like basketball and football generate over six billion dollars a year, but none of it goes to the athletes. Athletes should be paid for all of the time and dedication they put forth to their sport and the effort they put towards school to be eligible to play, athletes should get paid for all the money they bring to their school by playing sports, and players should also be paid for putting their bodies on the line while playing sports.