The college field is always a very subjective field of discussion, garnering debates ranging from the tuition costs all the way to internal campus debates such as the restrictions placed on fraternities and sororities. One of the most prevalent issues being discussed is debate over the payment of NCAA athletes and whether or not it should be permitted for student athletes to be able to profit from the lucrative business that is college sports. Articles published by writers Marc Edelman, “The Case for Paying College Athletes”, Sean Gregory, “It’s time to pay College Athletes”, and Zach Dirlam, “There’s no Crying in College” make the verdict clear. After analyzing the texts and using background information, combining the two has made the distinction …show more content…
As reported by Zach Dirlam of Text 4, “Athletic scholarships covers just about everything a student-athlete needs to survive for four years at a major university. Campus housing, daily medical care, and free meals via training table are all included. Tuition and books are covered as well” (12-14). He hits on all cylinders when touching upon all the expensive costs that come with a college education, all paid for and taken care of by scholarships. That alone, coupled with a college degree, is enough to motivate anyone to take part in a sport, regardless of whether they are going professional or not. The savings on expenses that add up to over a typical American salary per year over the course of a college education, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars already for those on a full ride. Factor in the costs of traveling with the team, the use of the school’s facilities and resources including trainers and doctors, along with the gear and top level coaches they get, and the numbers are astronomical. The evidence surrounding the positives of being a student-athlete are abundant enough to completely throw out any thought of paying them at all with all the facts and
The debate of whether not college athletes should be paid has been going on for a couple decades now. With college institutions gaining revenue from football bowl games and March Madness in basketball, Dr. Dennis Johnson thinks that “There now is a clamoring for compensating both football and basketball players beyond that of an athletic scholarship” (2012). On the other hand, Dr. John Acquaviva is satisfied with the current college system in which colleges provide athletic scholarships which reward a free college education in return for representing the university’s athletic program (2012). Dr. Johnson then follows up Dr. Aquaviva’s claim with his five selling points for the paying of college athletes and Dr. Aquaviva provides five points
Hala Warda Kristin McGregor English 90R 22 October 2015 Summary and Response#3: “College Athletes Should Be Paid” Ann Kaufmann’s article “College Athletes Should Be Paid” explains that because college football and men’s basketball programs are so profitable, the athletes who play them should be paid. One reason they should be paid is because they spend more time practicing than they study. For example, “college football and basketball players often spend upwards of 50 hours a week during the season at their sport” (452). Another reason is NCAA doesn’t allow players to accept any gifts money from anyone. For instance, the article states that “not surprising, college players are sometimes tempted to take money under the table” (452).
Not all athletes receive full rides or any scholarships at all yet, they still spend as much time and put as much effort into the sport just as someone who has had one received. The NCAA league makes a reportedly $11+ billion a year. None of which goes to any athlete. Paying the athlete could make the sport more competitive and appealing to one 's eye.
However, some people think college athletes should not be paid for many reasons such as, college athletes already receive numerous benefits. Many get scholarships, which help pay for their tuition, books ,dorms, and sporting equipment. According to the NCAA, college athletes often receive grants worth up to 100,000 dollars. They are the first choice for professional leagues, which draft college athletes at a higher rate than overseas or minor leagues. Also they might argue, college athletes should be considered students first, because by receiving direct payment, they would basically be employees or professionals rather than students.
Ryan Vanderfords’ article published in the Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal explores this issue of whether or not college athletes should be paid beyond what they receive in scholarships. Vanderford is currently a law associate at a law firm in Los Angeles, California. He played sports throughout high school and college, so the author can relate to this topic. The payment of college athletes has become a more prominent issue in today’s society then it has been in the past. He argues that at major universities, student athletes help the school generate their revenue and therefore should be paid.
Student athletes produce millions every year for their respective universities without receiving a share of that income. Because of the sacrifices
College athletes are not receiving a physical paycheck; instead they are receiving a scholarship that is worth much
“College athletes don’t have to worry about student loans, paying for textbooks, the cost of on-campus living, and meal plans” (McCauley). These student athletes are still going to college, hence the name college athletes. They are not professionals, and this is not the big leagues. A scholarship can take care of a big portion of the cost to go to college. Even if it doesn’t cover the whole cost, they are still paying a lot less than a regular student going to college.
In addition to all the practice, games, training, and traveling the student athletes still need to work hard as students (Cooper). A final reason as to why they should get paid is due to the fact that the students don’t go to college for an education they go to play sports. It is shown that they go to college to play sports because the coaches of the teams are given incentives to convince the students to go to class. Thus showing that the students are only interested in their athletics and not their
After graduating from High School one may choose to further his or her education through college. People do this for many reasons. Some people do it for professional benefits, while others do it for sports athletics. This paper will be focusing on those who do go to college for athletic benefits. Specifically, this is focusing on how these college athletes do not get paid and why they should be paid.
College sports is one of the best-known entertainments around the world. But for the athletes, they are students first then athletes second. For college student-athletes, there are a variety of scholarships and grants to help pay for college or college debt. However, some critics say that student-athletes should be paid a salary like pro athletes would, with help from scholarships or grants. The authors of, College Athletes are being Educated, not Exploited, Val Ackerman and Larry Scott, argue that student-athletes are already paid by free education and other necessities.
author Mark Drozdowski begins by listing the multiple deals signed with colleges to provide student-athletes with gear and equipment. He then states how college athletes are not provided salaries, but instead they are given scholarships. Drozdowski finishes his article by giving pros and cons of the subject, like how paying student athletes is needed compensation from the always occurring chance that they get injured, or how paying athletes will get messy with how much they pay each
Mike says”Students all over the world work hard at the sport that true love and don’t get a lot in return for it”. While college athletes may not exactly be employees, they are more than just students. Consider the life of a student-athlete, though. The average Division I football player dedicates over 43hours per week to his sport, meaning that he spends more than a typical American work-week training and playing football, in addition to his class work. Their work, which generates exorbitant amounts of money year in and year out, deserves Compensation.
When student-athletes received full scholarships, they should be privileged and thankful since the cost of higher education is very expensive. Student-athletes need to understand the circumstances and take of advantage of getting their degree from a well renowned university since the percentages are very slim to none on having a professional career in sports. The purpose of a student-athlete is to be a student first and then an athlete second. The main focus should be on earning a degree, and not worrying about when is the next game on the schedule. Many people are stating that college athletes should get paid, but how about the general student body that has little to nothing and working a job earning minimal pay.
A growing debate in the National Collegiate Athletic Association is whether or not student athletes should be paid. The controversy began in 2011 after three hundred coaches and athletes signed a petition to pay college-level athletes, and since then other athletes have made several more arguments. The NCAA has rightfully denied all of the requests, saying they include too much. To pay student athletes could be hugely expensive for colleges, especially because they would not only pay for each athlete’s degree and equipment, but also provide a salary and give bonuses revenue for tournaments. Moreover, college athletes should not be paid because there is not enough money, it takes away a student’s focus from schoolwork, and not every athlete is guaranteed a professional career after graduating; however it is argued that it they are already paid in a way.