Why Are Students Athletes At The College Level Not Compensated? Essay

College athletics is a billion dollar industry and has been for a long time. Due to the increasing ratings of college athletics, this figure will continue to rise. It’s simple: bigger, faster, stronger athletes will generate more money. College Universities generate so much revenue during the year that it is only fair to the players that they get a cut. College athletes should get paid based on the university’s revenue, apparel sales, and lack of spending money.

There is a strong side to why college athletes should not get paid for playing, but there is a much weaker opposition for the argument that college athletes should be paid. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it sounds empty-headed and upright foolish to believe that college should deserve a contract that will pay them for all the work they have done in sports. A different viewpoint is some athletes need the money to support their families as this was always their motive and the professional leagues may not work out for them due to injuries or poor choices. An intriguing outlook on this scenario “Thirdly, for those who do not plan on playing professionally, college athletics is an avenue for them to receive a free education should they be rewarded a scholarship. Athletes are provided with a free education that allows them to increase their labor supply in non-athletic markets after graduation, without having to bear the typical education costs that other students must pay.”

Imagine being one of the best employees working for a billion dollar industry, but despite that, you aren’t paid. That is the reality for college athletes, who should be paid for their athletic ability. In the United States, four hundred thousand athletes are part of the NCAA. Yet, none of the athletes are paid. College athletes should be paid because they make the events possible, and those events generate billions of dollars in profit.

College athletics is a billion dollar industry and has been for a long time. Due to the increasing ratings of college athletics, this figure will continue to rise. It’s simple: bigger, faster, stronger athletes will generate more money. College Universities generate so much revenue during the year that it is only fair to the players that they get a cut. College athletes should get paid based on the university’s revenue, apparel sales, and lack of spending money.

The amount of money made over the past twelve years in football and basketball has increased to about 300%, which helps fund all other sports (Meshefejian). College coaches are receiving a numerous amount of money for what the players are doing out on the court or field. Also, some athletes feel they need to excel more in the sport than in the classroom which can jeopardize their future. Student-athletes have other costs they need to pay for, but they have no time for a job due to practices, workouts, and games. College athletes should be paid for playing at the collegiate level, because they would focus more on academic studies, have an easier time paying for extra costs, and the colleges earn enough money

The NCAA, formerly known as the IAAUS, was founded in March 31, 1906 and is the official non-profit intercollegiate organization that represents athletes from all colleges and universities. Subsequently, it became permanently known as the NCAA in 1910. In the last few decades, college sports have grown vastly in popularity and as a result of this popularity, the growth of monetary revenue for institutions have increased substantially (Mondello et.al 106). With the success of college athletics, it is no wonder the monetary gain has come to the forefront and is now one the greatest debate in reference to sports. Should college athletes get paid as if they are professionals already? Paying college athletes would deter the sole purpose of universities which is to provide quality education. Student athletes are not professionals, therefore, paying student athletes would be difficult to justify. College athletics in the various programs do not generate the same amount of revenue even though athletes would put in the same effort. College athletes should be informed upon signing the contractual agreement to participate in varsity sports that it is in exchange for an all expense paid education and that there is no monetary reward involved. Students should not expect to receive monetary payment as if they are employed, and this should not be a matter of contention during the tenure at the university. The transition from academic to economic would not be an easy one because there are

In light of the outbreak of scandals and bribery occurring in college athletics, the average person would most likely agree that paying college athletes would escalate the desire for extreme NCAA neglect, which would be an extreme job in all aspects. However, there are even more efficient problems to consider. For example, how much should college athletes get paid and what will those payment increments be chosen by? What if a student-athlete on scholarship ends up with a severe injury halfway through their sporting season? What if a student-athlete does not end up being as superior as thought to be and, although still remaining on the team, does not start or even play at all? These are all problematic things that should surface far more questions. According to College Express, it has been shown that only a fraction of Division I football and men’s basketball programs turn a profit. The other Division I football and basketball programs, as well as baseball, softball, golf, hockey, women’s basketball, and just about all Division II

In the year 2014, the National College Athletic Association (NCAA) made almost one billion dollars through ticket sales, merchandise licensing, and TV contracts (Sports). Yet, none of that money ever ends up in the pockets of the athletes, who are responsible for bringing in all of the revenue, who train for countless hours per week, leaving little time for anything outside of sports. Practice and constant travel, added to the stresses of school work, make it difficult for a college athlete to hold down a job. The NCAA is unfairly making money from the athletes, and the athletes should get a cut of the profit. College athletes should be paid to play.

Paying college athletes has been frowned upon until now. A number of colleges are trying to pay their athletes for their commitment to their sports. Paying college athletes should not be something controversial, but something ethically right due to what they go through to get to this point. What these athletes do year round: compete fiercely in a sport or multiple sports, is challenging and very risky injury wise, which is the least to say about what they offer up to play their sports. A report shows that “86 percent of college athletes live below the poverty line” ( Hayes ). Despite this high percentage, these athletes still continue to thrive and surpass the struggle to pursue a life goal. College athletes should get paid because of their hard work, dedication, and the exposure they give for the school they represent.

Each year in the United States over 100,000 collegiate student-athletes participate in a variety of different sports and currently they do not receive paychecks for their performances. Many people have asked the question, should college athletes start getting paid? The simple answer to that question is no. The answer is no because the system that is in place now for current athletes is perfect since it gives athletes opportunities, but does not spoil them. There would be many downfalls if the NCAA and universities started to pay their athletes. College athletes would feel as if they are professional athletes and that is exactly what they are not. They are simply playing a sport, whichever one it may be, and that is it. Sports are games

Sports have been an integral part of leisure time for America since the early 1900s, when listening to sports, especially baseball, on the radio was a beloved pastime for many families. Lately, college sports, primarily men’s basketball and football, have become more popular. Now that college sports have grown to such a high popularity level, people are asking, “Should these kids get paid?” Though many believe these athletes should be paid, I do not. Collegiate athletes should not be paid because they are not going to school for sports but for an education; they are not professionals, and therefore, should not be paid as such; and paying them would take away funding all other smaller sports and the overall funding of the school.

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

“The recent explosion of revenues flowing to NCAA member institutions and the relative pittance going to the primary input—the players—for those participating in bowl games and the annual “March Madness” men’s basketball tournament have created growing unease over the distribution of the largesse (Sanderson 116).” Players in the National Collegiate Athletic Association or NCAA are looking for financial aid outside of their academics. The NCAA feels an increasing need to distribute more financial aid towards student-athletes, and they would like “to consider changing restrictions on athletes’ opportunities to earn income beyond their grants-in-aid” (Sanderson 117). This will allow athletes do have more disposable income outside of their studies. For a more detailed study on the topic, Allen R. Sanderson and John J. Siegfried dig into the economic side of paying college athletes in their Journal for Economic Perspectives: “The Case for Paying College Athletes”. With the rapid advancement of technology and social media, the National Collegiate Athletes Association is becoming monopolistic in their large-scale commercialized sports programs. The resources are being allocated to different companies involved in the profit making off of student athletes. The NCAA is developing ways to make collegiate sports more competitive, and one of these ways is to pay the athletes participating in big sports programs such as men’s basketball and football. Their argument is that college

There is a reasonable argument that compensation for college athletes is necessary while attending university. However, the reason for this debate cannot be resolved in such an uncomplicated matter. College football and basketball bring in six billion dollars a year. College athletes deal with scholarship gaps that leave them

The line between college and professional sports continues to blur where college sports now acts like the minor leagues for professional organizations like the NBA and the NFL. But unlike the minor leagues where players are paid to play in their respective sport, players or student-athletes in the NCAA receive $0 for playing for their school. They do however receive scholarships, some being worth up to $60,000 to pay for tuition and room and board. These athletes are able to obtain a free education through these scholarships but it is not enough. Two of the biggest sports in college athletics, football and men’s basketball, earn millions of dollars in revenue for schools around the country and for the NCAA, yet these athletes do not see one penny of it. The top coaches in these sports earn seven figure salaries with six figure bonuses depending on how well they do in the post season but the players that are generating the money are not being compensated for their efforts.