The Coach of a football team is just as important as any player performing on the field. In fact his power over the team surpasses that of any one single player, the coach can determine whether an entire season is a victory or a loss. Perhaps this is why Colleges justify paying a coach millions of dollar a year, but the players who are out there beside him next to nothing. Although a lot of the players that perform on the field week by week do get scholarships to help their tuition fees, food, and housing, this pales in comparison to the millions of dollars that the schools will bring in every season of football. It is wrong for colleges to use athletes to make money and not pay them or allow them to earn money in anyway involving their sport.…
Paying college athletes has been a controversy for over a century, dating back to what is considered to be the first intercollegiate competition. Fact is college athletes want to get paid beyond a scholarship. Yes, scholarships pay for the student’s tuition, books, classes, living expenses, etc., but they have no money to buy clothes, pay for parking, food, etc. Expecting the players to get paid millions of dollars is obviously unrealistic, but paying them as if it was a full time job, at least minimum wage is adequate enough. For the 15 highest paid coaches in Division 1, together they bring in around $100,000,000 every year.…
After doing some research over a year ago and taking another look at this issue now, the question about paying college athletes has stayed the same. The debate whether to pay college athletes or not arose in the 1980s after Southern Methodist University was caught paying football players for their services. Upon discovery of these infractions, SMU was administered the “death penalty”, including loss of scholarships and no participation in bowl games for five years. The controversy surrounding paying college athletes seems to have risen from this unfortunate circumstance and has been cultivated into a huge social topic today. Following the SMU scandal in the late 1980s the NCAA rewrote their guidebook that describes an athlete’s role in an academic institution. According to the NCAA, “Student-athletes are students first and athletes second. They are not university employees who are paid for their labor” (NCAA.com). Looking at the arguments made by the NCAA, they make a valid point in showing how athletes are “compensated” for their participation in sports. According to the NCAA, “Many [athletes] receive athletics grants-in-aid that can be…
The System for college athletes isnt perfect, and needs to be worked on, a big problem we cannot seem to agree is how to compensate the student-athletes who drive the NCAA. I would like to start off with a question. Are college athletes being compensated enough for the effort they put forth today? Every Day they wake up early and represent their university whether they are putting in work in class or on the field. Each student-student athlete generates tons of money for their university and they don’t see a dime other than their scholarship that may or may not been renewed every year. Keep that question in mind while reading this essay, and form your own opinion.…
The number one reason why college athletes should be paid is because they deserve it. College student athletes are working hard anywhere between 30 to 40 hours a week to be successful and excellent. On average every college athletic season ranks in between ten and 150 million dollars in revenue and zero dollars are rewarded to the athletes. Recently there was about an 11 billion dollar deal made between the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the television station, CBS. The deal revolved around a popular event in men’s college basketball, March Madness. The deal was that from 2011 to 2024, CBS would be the station to air the three weekend long event, and again, zero dollars go to the athletes making the event possible. March Madness doesn’t exist without the athletes and they receive none of the billions of dollars the event makes. Andrew Luck was a starting quarterback for Stanford University and a Heisman Trophy candidate. Fans came to the Stanford football games just to see him play. People purchased the jersey emblazoned with his name and number from the Stanford gift shop and he made absolutely no profit from this. Everything went to Nike and the University itself. Andrew Luck is just one example among the many college student…
Recently, the Vikings running back, Adrian Peterson was interviewed about his opinion on whether or not college athletes should be paid; he made it very clear that he was all for payment of players. Peterson basically stated that, “When he was in college that the jersey and ticket sells, made a lot of money for the university.” College sports provide a huge source of the universities income. He continues to stress his point by saying…
Playing a college sport is like a full time job, except the lack of financial benefits. College football and men’s basketball generate revenue of more than $6 billion every year, yet no money goes toward paying the people that make the sports possible (Bagaria). College sports would be non-existent without the devoted athletes who work hard and spend countless hours each and every day. Whether practicing, training, or playing in games, these athletes are involved in their sport all seven days of the week. College athletes put in almost the same amount of work as professional players do, but instead of making millions, rather they are receiving no financial benefits (Bagaria). College athletes deserve to be paid because they sacrifice so much for their team and deserve compensation. Secondly, college athletes not only deserve money because of their devotion, they also need it for their everyday life. During their athletic season, they do not receive any sort of payment for their efforts which would aide them financially and in everyday life (Bagaria). Most scholarships cover cost of housing and textbooks, but leave out basics such as food. Logically athletes need food, but their time and energy is spent on a “job” as an athlete…
The United States is the only country in the world that hosts big-time sports at institutions of higher learning. This should not, in and of itself, be controversial. What has become debatable is whether college athletes of high revenue-producing sports deserve to receive compensation for being the basis of a billion dollar business. In other words, do certain college athletes deserve to be paid to play? Although this may seem like a good idea to some, it ignores already existing compensations to players as well as other dilemmas that would arise if players were to be paid. Despite the amount of money universities generate because of their student athletes, pay for play would be wrong.…
The notion of paying college athletes has been an ongoing and controversial debate for student-athletes, coaches, schools, media and most certainly the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Many would argue that playing major college sports is more like a job versus an extracurricular activity. As with the majority of many student athletes, some attend college with the aspiration of becoming professional players thereby college is seen as a means to end. Although student-athletes already receive compensation via full and partial scholarships to participate at the college level, passionate conversations will continue to be a topic of debate because of the enormous revenue generated by college sports.…
The question regarding whether or not college athletes should have the ability to receive financial compensation is one that has been an ongoing over the past decade. It is imperative that the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Mr. Mark Emmert, reexamines this topic. Though the debate regarding the financial compensation of student…
There are many that are against the idea of paying college athletes. The most important of which is the NCAA. The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association), created in 1906, is the governing body of college athletics in the United States and parts of Canada. Currently, the NCAA has rules in place that prohibit any sort of compensation to student athletes whether it be actual money or something such as a vehicle or a house that the player can live at without paying for it (Rush). There are reasons to get rid of these rules besides to just make it easier on the NCAA. Many that are against paying the student athletes argue that if a player needs extra money, he/she could get a part time job like every other normal college student. But with all of the offseason training that today’s programs put their players through and then on top of that, doing school work, there is no free time for a student athlete to also have a job (Lewis). So if a player needs some spending money under the current rule structure they are out of luck because they would have to sacrifice something else to get that money. Even if the universities would be permitted to sit aside a hundred…
Why should kids be paid for doing a professionals job? The debate on whether or not to pay college athletes is a debate that has been argued for quite some time. Due to the lack of positive results, and a surplus of negatives, this should not take place. There is no way to muster up a fair system to pay the athletes while keeping everyone happy. Also, paying players will distract them from their academics due to them knowing that they can make money playing sports. Lastly, the athletes already have an opportunity for money with scholarships. Therefore, in order to keep college athletes happy and focused on school while still giving them an opportunity to receive scholarships, the students should not be paid for their athletic performances.…
While catching up on some game day scores for college football, an article popped up on the side with a title reading, College Athletes Deserve To Be Paid. I noticed it was written by Michael Wilbon, one of the hosts from the ESPN show, Pardon the Interruption. Already disagreeing with the title before even reading it, I was skeptical, but I clicked on the link and started to read. Wilbon brought up a number of decent points throughout the article, but for some odd reason, they didn’t seem to add up to me. This is why I took the opportunity to do a little more research behind the points made in the article and came up with a concept of my own. Wilbon’s reasons why to pay the athletes don’t have a strong backbone to them and his ideas on how to pay athletes are simply not feasible.…
“Should College Athletes Be Paid?” Issues and Controversies. 4 June 1999. Facts on File. Croton Harmon High School Library, Croton on Hudson, NY. 18 December 2009. http://www.2facts.com…
College athletes should get paid for what they do. College athletes aren’t allowed to have a job while in college. And not all college athletes get free education and those are the ones struggling to make it. College athletes bring in a lot of money so they should get some of the money.…