not paying college athletes essay

By: Josh Cooper Over the past few years there have been debates on whether college athletes should be paid as if they were professional athletes. College athletes are guys that are trying to get to the pros and therefore, are not paid because they have not made it yet. Because these players are in college, they should never be paid to play their sport. There is a reason why it is called college sports. It is called college sports because the athletes that play in it are students and not professionals. Just like any field, you go to college to hone your skills and learn how to do your job. College sports are no different from this. I am a broadcast journalism major and no one pays me to set up interviews, anchor a show, or broadcast on the best college radio station, U92 FM. The reason why no one pays me to do any of that is because I am learning my field in order to get paid when I get a job. In college sports you play to get to the pros, not to earn a paycheck as a student. Another big reason why college athletes should not be paid is because colleges are paying enough money to build facilities, pay coaches, give scholarships, and pay athletic directors to make sure that they have the best chance of winning. If colleges pay their athletes, there will not be as much money to go around for any of these things. Also, in a bad economy like this, they can’t afford to pay athletes. If a school wants to pay a big-time coach, they can’t pay their players. Also, they are already helping their players get into the school by giving them their scholarships so that they can make school as affordable as possible. Reggie Bush, one of the greatest college athletes ever, being forced to return his Heisman will forever be one of the black eyes on the NCAA. Can stains like this be prevented by paying college athletes? What people forget about college athletes is that they are student.
Enter Your Search Terms to Get Started! Pros and cons of paying college athletes Over the past couple of years there have been numerous arguments over whether college athletes should be paid or not. Division I athletes have been pouring their hearts out day after day, week after week, for their universities. With television contracts and shoe deals alone, the athletes are really bringing in the money. I guess you could argue that an athletes scholarship is enough to compensate, but are they? But, I say they shouldn't be paid. I think an athletic scholarship is enough. But there are many pros and cons to this debate, views that are shared by many. I still sympathize with college athletes because I use to play college football and I can tell you it’s not an easy task to play sports and attend school full time. A pure athlete plays the game simply because he loves it. Some athletes play the game to further there professional prospects while others simply play to earn a scholarship to attend college. Professionalizing college sports by paying athletes money will cause more problems in the long run. How would the money be divided up between the sports? Questions like, will women’s sports get a fare shack of proceeds. How do you determine which athletes get the most money? People would still complain and maybe more so. You would still have female athletes or athletes from sports that make less money wanting their cut. In the pros this is a legitimate problem because franchises cannot compete. In college athletics it comes down to the fact of who gets paid and how much. In the long run it will just create more problems. College sports can be better than pro sports because almost all of the athletes play for the love of the game. In the pros it can be all about the money. On the other hand professionalizing college athletics has an upside. There are many athletes who want to.
Gregory Shamus, Getty Images Today, people are saying the one way to prevent another Ohio State mess from happening again is to pay the players.  That’s essentially what happened here, right?  Wouldn’t giving cash to the players solve everything?  Shouldn’t we just pay college athletes? College athletes should not get paid. No way.  Their college scholarship is payment enough. Athletes should be happy with the free education. If they don’t like it, they should try paying for the tuition without scholarships.  They get a free education, I didn’t.   We’re talking about 0,000 for 4 years.  These days, college isn’t just a luxury, it’s a necessity.  Those who don’t go to college will be left behind with no measurable skills for employers.  Most jobs today require a college degree! How many universities would take students with borderline test scores if they had no athletic abilities? Without their skills, they wouldn’t get an education. The athlete isn’t FORCED to take a scholarship. Nobody is forcing him to go to college! This is the sense of entitlement argument I don’t like. Most students DO STRUGGLE to make ends meet.  Most students work during the school year – to pay for college! Every kid I knew that worked during college, did it for school – not to take their girlfriend out to the movies or get a pizza. If you decide to pay them, that’s going to open the floodgates.  When is it too much?  The ,000 a month soon becomes ,000 a month.  It would be out of control because the student-athletes would feel like they weren’t being paid enough.  I don’t know one person that feels like their job pays them enough and these kids would be no different. Have we forgotten that these kids are there for an education? The percentage of football players getting drafted is 2%. That’s two percent!  The other 98% will have college degrees if they stick it out. That’s 98% of.
  Introduction College athletics have gained immense popularity among Americans over the past few decades. This has resulted into increased revenues for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the participating colleges which has fuelled the debate of whether college athletes should be compensated beyond their athletic scholarships. This paper will attempt to answer the question as to whether college athletes should be paid by exploring the reasons for and against the payment of college athletes.   Reasons why college students should be paid Athletes form the basic unit of intercollegiate sports. Despite the success of NCAA tournaments, athletes do not receive any monetary compensation. The main reasons fronted by the NCAA for lack of payment are that it wants to maintain its amateur status and that payment would compromise the integrity of intercollegiate athletics. It has increased its profits through the sale of merchandise, television rights and licenses for video games. Athletes play an active role in the promotion of these activities but do not benefit from the profits that are generated. This can be viewed as exploitation and is unethical. Other students on scholarships are paid when their offer their services to their schools and the same should apply for athletes. This is because athletes offer more to their colleges than other students to the extent where sports have become the foundation of some universities. In this regard, universities like Alabama and Indiana are appreciated more due to their prowess in football and basketball respectively instead of their academic excellence.   Reasons why college athletes should not be paid Paying athletes would undermine the primary role of universities which is to offer education. The lifetime skills and education that athletes receive while in college cannot be equated to the amount they would.
college athletes Length: 874 words (2.5 double-spaced pages) Rating: Red (FREE)   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - College athletes are manipulated every day. Student athletes are working day in and day out to meet academic standards and to keep their level of play competitive. These athletes need to be rewarded and credited for their achievements. Not only are these athletes not being rewarded but they are also living with no money. Because the athletes are living off of no money they are very vulnerable to taking money from boosters and others that are willing to help them out. The problem with this is that the athletes are not only getting themselves in trouble but their athletic departments as well.      Recently college athletes have been granted permission to work, from the NCAA. Even with this permission, their jobs are still regulated. One regulation to the athletes working is that they cannot work for alumni of the school. The NCAA has this rule because they feel if athletes work for people with close ties to the school then they will be receiving special benefits while working. These special benefits include, (but are not limited to), athletes being paid while not at work and higher salaries then other workers doing the same job (Anstine 4).      Another restraint to college athletes working is a time restraint. College athletes have very busy schedules they follow and when finished with their schedules they are left with very little free time. Student athletes are required to take a minimum of twelve credit hours to start the semester and required to pass at least nine credit hours by the end of the semester. With this standard having to be met, the athletes are spending hours studying and attending class. Besides from studying and attending class the athletes then have to go to practice. Going to practice and.
Carlos Barria / Reuters Motor City Meltdown The Republican Party appears on the edge of collapse, and the raucous exchange in Detroit did nothing to erase that impression. Continue Reading Andrew Harnik / AP The 2016 U.S. Presidential Race: A Cheat Sheet Even after big wins from Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on Super Tuesday, none of their rivals are showing any indication that they’ll drop out. Super Tuesday marks a turning point in the presidential campaign. On the one hand, it anoints Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as all-but-prohibitive frontrunners in the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. Yet it also seems to mark the end of a recent phase of consolidation, as the race shrank from an unwieldy, crowded scrum to a slightly wieldier, less crowded scrum. Since the primaries and caucuses started on February 1, a slew of candidates have dropped out, bowing to the realities of little support and less money. But even after strong performances by both Clinton and Trump on Super Tuesday, none of the other candidates shows any sign of getting out of the race. Marco Rubio’s great hope was that he would do well enough, and Ted Cruz and John Kasich would do poorly enough, to create leverage on them to leave the race. Instead, Rubio had a rotten night. He won in Minnesota, his first nominating contest of the cycle, but fell short everywhere else. In several states, and most importantly Texas, he didn’t even cross the 20 percent threshold required to get a share of the delegates. The Rubio campaign is reeling, despite his broadside against Trump over the last week, with his main hope to stanch the bleeding with a win in Florida on March 15. Beware the ides of March. Continue Reading Zak Bickel / The Atlantic From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer A former aide to Hillary Clinton has been granted immunity in a criminal investigation, and the.