Essay On College Athletes Should Not Be Paid
A debate has ensued over whether or not colleges should be able to pay their athletes, due to athletic programs bringing in so much money for schools. Not paying college athletes would be good because students already receive compensation towards college, students are given many auditions to become professional, and college is not a job. On the other hand, others argue that college athletes should be paid because schools and coaches are rich from the students' work students do not have any time to have a job, and not paying the athletes may violate federal antitrust laws. The National College Athletic Association, founded in 1910, oversees college athletics. The NCAA established a rule later on stating that it is forbidden to pay college athletes. College athletes should not be paid because it would be unfair and take away college's real purpose.
Paying student-athletes is not a good idea because college sports teams may not be able to afford to pay the athletes. …show more content…
The money that sports teams bring in is used to support the team and the athletes. For example, the athletic director of the University of Cincinnati, Mike Bohn noted, "the large expenses involved in maintaining a high-profile sports team, including tutors, chartered flights, food, supplements, healthcare, and coaches" (DiLascio). A high-profile college sports team is very expensive to maintain, as it includes many benefits for the players. Therefore, although it is true that colleges bring in millions because of the athletes, the majority of the money brought in goes towards taking care of the athletes. As a result of the teams paying for several large expenses, it is possible that the college teams may not be able to afford to pay their athletes.
Paying college athletes could also create a labor market within the sports and burden high school students with financial decisions. If college athletics were to turn into a labor market, it would affect high school students and their mindsets. For instance, the article states, "paying student-athletes also risks turning college sports into a labor market. This places a significant burden on high school athletes to assess their monetary value without the benefit of an agent to assist them, as agents are also prohibited" (Counterpoint: college athletes should remain amateurs). A labor market within college athletics could be created by paying the student-athletes since the athletes would then adopt a monetary value and be bid on. This would burden high schoolers with how much money they are worth ad how much they would spend to go to a Division 1 college. College athletes receiving compensation would burden both college and high school athletes with what their financial values are.
It is unreasonable to pay college athletes, as they are amateurs and not professionals. College athletics is not a job, it is an extracurricular activity for the students. For example, the author states, "student-athletes are amateurs who choose to participate in intercollegiate athletics as a part of their educational experience" (Mitchell). Student-athletes are not professionals who play sports for a living, they are amateurs playing for a school. Participating in college athletics is a choice, the students do not have to play if they disagree with the rules. When joining a college sports team, the students are aware of what they are getting themselves into. Therefore, it is unreasonable to pay the student-athletes since college athletics is not a profession and because the athletes agreed to all of the NCAA rules, including the one stating that they would not and could not be paid.
Due to the NCAA's rules, college athletes are prohibited of payment. There is a rule created by the NCAA stating that colleges are unable to pay the students athletes for their work. For instance, the rule states, "maintaining amateurism is crucial to preserving an academic environment in which acquiring a quality education is the first priority" (DiLascio). An amateur is a person who participates in activities as a pastime and is not paid for their work. The NCAA's rule stated that the college athletes must maintain amateurism, prohibiting the athletes from being paid. Since the student-athletes are only amateurs, it is forbidden to pay the students in cash for their participation. Therefore, unless the NCAA changes their rules, it is banned to pay the college athletes.
It would be unfair if college athletes received compensation due to the other revenue generating college activities. If both activities bring in money to the school, why should only the athletes receive compensation? For example, the article states, "..paying college athletes also raises difficult issues regarding compensation to student-athletes on nonrevenue-generating teams or to student participants in other revenue-generating activities, such as orchestra and dance programs" (Counterpoint: College Athletes Should Remain Amateurs). The discussion of paying college athletes creates many issues as paying other activities that generate money for the school has not been considered. College athletes also already receive many perks for their work, way more benefits than other college activities. Paying the student-athletes would be unfair, as the other college activities would receive nothing.
Student-athletes should not receive compensation since they already receive a great amount of money towards college. Most college athletes are able to attend college for little to no money. For instance, the author writes, "a high percentage of student-athletes graduate without the burden of student loans, which most other students accumulate" (Mitchell). Due to many college athletes being able to attend college for free, they are also able to graduate from college without the debt of student loans. Therefore, it seems quite ridiculous to pay student-athletes for their work when they receive a free college experience. In addition, the other college activities bringing in money to the school have the burden of graduating with the debt of student loans. The athletes already receive much more than other activities, so paying athletes would be very unreasonable.
Paying student-athletes is unnecessary because the athletes are trained and showcased to become professional athletes. In addition to the free college experience and the health benefits, athletes also receive many auditions to become professional athletes. For example, economist Neil H. Buchanan saw, "college athletes also receive the 'chance to audition for a career in professional sports' which is difficult to value" (Counterpoint: College Athletes Should Remain Amateurs). Through college athletics, the athletes receive many chances to be recruited to play for a professional sports team. Having the chance to become a professional athlete is worth a lot, as it could turn the athletes into millionaires. College sports are not for professionals who get paid, it is for amateurs to be trained and prepared to play professionally.
College's purpose is to educate students, not to fund sports teams. Paying college athletes would conceal the real purpose of college, which is education. For instance, the article states, "providing them with additional cash payments will divert even more funding from academic departments and undermine the primary purpose of attending college" (Counterpoint: College Athletes Should Remain Amateurs). The funding of the college athletics would take away funds for the academic programs. The academic aspect of college would begin to vanish if college athletes are paid. College students are supposed to pay to go to college, not get paid to attend college. The college athletes receiving compensation would lead to college's purpose of educating students to be unclear and possibly become vanished.
Although some believe that college athletes should receive no additional compensation, other believe that the athletes deserve to be paid due to the extensive hours that the athletes dedicate to sports. It has been believed that the athletes need to be paid because they have no say in their schedules. For example, the article says, "student-athletes put in long hours and travel extensively to be part of high-profile sports teams...The students have no input into these schedule-expanding decisions and receive no additional compensation;" (Point: College Athletes Should Be Paid For Their Participation). Many believe that because of the great deal of control that the NCAA has on the athletes, the athletes should be paid. However, the athletes knew what they were agreeing to when they joined college athletics. Playing college athletics is a choice, if the athletes do not like the rules and conditions, they do not have to play. The athletes also receive many benefits from playing on a college sports team, such as health benefits, auditions to become a professional athlete, and full-rides to college.
It is believed by some that college athletes deserve to be paid since the colleges make millions due to the athletes, but some people oppose to paying college athletes.
Many people think that it is unfair that the student-athletes make their college money and yet the students see none of it. For instance, Veazey states, "Sept.02--In 2010-11, the University of Memphis men's basketball team brought in $16.7 million. Will Barton, who spent 18 hours that year playing for the Tigers and hundreds of hours practicing and preparing for those games, saw none of it" (Veazey). One main belief on the topic is that the student-athletes should receive money for making their college millions. On the other hand, the colleges use their income to support the sports teams with healthcare, supplements, etc. The student-athletes already receive thousands of dollars towards their college payments, as well as many other benefits for their hard work. College sports is not a profession to make money, it is an amateur
activity.
Payment should not be received by college athletes because it would take the real purpose of college away, which is to provide education to the students, and it would also be unfair. Paying college athletes is a prevalent topic for debates. People need to know that paying college athletes would hinder the idea and importance of making it professionally. College is not a profession, it is meant to provide students with education and prepare them for life. Paying college athletes is unfair and unreasonable in many ways.
Paying student-athletes is not a good idea because college sports teams may not be able to afford to pay the athletes. …show more content…
The money that sports teams bring in is used to support the team and the athletes. For example, the athletic director of the University of Cincinnati, Mike Bohn noted, "the large expenses involved in maintaining a high-profile sports team, including tutors, chartered flights, food, supplements, healthcare, and coaches" (DiLascio). A high-profile college sports team is very expensive to maintain, as it includes many benefits for the players. Therefore, although it is true that colleges bring in millions because of the athletes, the majority of the money brought in goes towards taking care of the athletes. As a result of the teams paying for several large expenses, it is possible that the college teams may not be able to afford to pay their athletes.
Paying college athletes could also create a labor market within the sports and burden high school students with financial decisions. If college athletics were to turn into a labor market, it would affect high school students and their mindsets. For instance, the article states, "paying student-athletes also risks turning college sports into a labor market. This places a significant burden on high school athletes to assess their monetary value without the benefit of an agent to assist them, as agents are also prohibited" (Counterpoint: college athletes should remain amateurs). A labor market within college athletics could be created by paying the student-athletes since the athletes would then adopt a monetary value and be bid on. This would burden high schoolers with how much money they are worth ad how much they would spend to go to a Division 1 college. College athletes receiving compensation would burden both college and high school athletes with what their financial values are.
It is unreasonable to pay college athletes, as they are amateurs and not professionals. College athletics is not a job, it is an extracurricular activity for the students. For example, the author states, "student-athletes are amateurs who choose to participate in intercollegiate athletics as a part of their educational experience" (Mitchell). Student-athletes are not professionals who play sports for a living, they are amateurs playing for a school. Participating in college athletics is a choice, the students do not have to play if they disagree with the rules. When joining a college sports team, the students are aware of what they are getting themselves into. Therefore, it is unreasonable to pay the student-athletes since college athletics is not a profession and because the athletes agreed to all of the NCAA rules, including the one stating that they would not and could not be paid.
Due to the NCAA's rules, college athletes are prohibited of payment. There is a rule created by the NCAA stating that colleges are unable to pay the students athletes for their work. For instance, the rule states, "maintaining amateurism is crucial to preserving an academic environment in which acquiring a quality education is the first priority" (DiLascio). An amateur is a person who participates in activities as a pastime and is not paid for their work. The NCAA's rule stated that the college athletes must maintain amateurism, prohibiting the athletes from being paid. Since the student-athletes are only amateurs, it is forbidden to pay the students in cash for their participation. Therefore, unless the NCAA changes their rules, it is banned to pay the college athletes.
It would be unfair if college athletes received compensation due to the other revenue generating college activities. If both activities bring in money to the school, why should only the athletes receive compensation? For example, the article states, "..paying college athletes also raises difficult issues regarding compensation to student-athletes on nonrevenue-generating teams or to student participants in other revenue-generating activities, such as orchestra and dance programs" (Counterpoint: College Athletes Should Remain Amateurs). The discussion of paying college athletes creates many issues as paying other activities that generate money for the school has not been considered. College athletes also already receive many perks for their work, way more benefits than other college activities. Paying the student-athletes would be unfair, as the other college activities would receive nothing.
Student-athletes should not receive compensation since they already receive a great amount of money towards college. Most college athletes are able to attend college for little to no money. For instance, the author writes, "a high percentage of student-athletes graduate without the burden of student loans, which most other students accumulate" (Mitchell). Due to many college athletes being able to attend college for free, they are also able to graduate from college without the debt of student loans. Therefore, it seems quite ridiculous to pay student-athletes for their work when they receive a free college experience. In addition, the other college activities bringing in money to the school have the burden of graduating with the debt of student loans. The athletes already receive much more than other activities, so paying athletes would be very unreasonable.
Paying student-athletes is unnecessary because the athletes are trained and showcased to become professional athletes. In addition to the free college experience and the health benefits, athletes also receive many auditions to become professional athletes. For example, economist Neil H. Buchanan saw, "college athletes also receive the 'chance to audition for a career in professional sports' which is difficult to value" (Counterpoint: College Athletes Should Remain Amateurs). Through college athletics, the athletes receive many chances to be recruited to play for a professional sports team. Having the chance to become a professional athlete is worth a lot, as it could turn the athletes into millionaires. College sports are not for professionals who get paid, it is for amateurs to be trained and prepared to play professionally.
College's purpose is to educate students, not to fund sports teams. Paying college athletes would conceal the real purpose of college, which is education. For instance, the article states, "providing them with additional cash payments will divert even more funding from academic departments and undermine the primary purpose of attending college" (Counterpoint: College Athletes Should Remain Amateurs). The funding of the college athletics would take away funds for the academic programs. The academic aspect of college would begin to vanish if college athletes are paid. College students are supposed to pay to go to college, not get paid to attend college. The college athletes receiving compensation would lead to college's purpose of educating students to be unclear and possibly become vanished.
Although some believe that college athletes should receive no additional compensation, other believe that the athletes deserve to be paid due to the extensive hours that the athletes dedicate to sports. It has been believed that the athletes need to be paid because they have no say in their schedules. For example, the article says, "student-athletes put in long hours and travel extensively to be part of high-profile sports teams...The students have no input into these schedule-expanding decisions and receive no additional compensation;" (Point: College Athletes Should Be Paid For Their Participation). Many believe that because of the great deal of control that the NCAA has on the athletes, the athletes should be paid. However, the athletes knew what they were agreeing to when they joined college athletics. Playing college athletics is a choice, if the athletes do not like the rules and conditions, they do not have to play. The athletes also receive many benefits from playing on a college sports team, such as health benefits, auditions to become a professional athlete, and full-rides to college.
It is believed by some that college athletes deserve to be paid since the colleges make millions due to the athletes, but some people oppose to paying college athletes.
Many people think that it is unfair that the student-athletes make their college money and yet the students see none of it. For instance, Veazey states, "Sept.02--In 2010-11, the University of Memphis men's basketball team brought in $16.7 million. Will Barton, who spent 18 hours that year playing for the Tigers and hundreds of hours practicing and preparing for those games, saw none of it" (Veazey). One main belief on the topic is that the student-athletes should receive money for making their college millions. On the other hand, the colleges use their income to support the sports teams with healthcare, supplements, etc. The student-athletes already receive thousands of dollars towards their college payments, as well as many other benefits for their hard work. College sports is not a profession to make money, it is an amateur
activity.
Payment should not be received by college athletes because it would take the real purpose of college away, which is to provide education to the students, and it would also be unfair. Paying college athletes is a prevalent topic for debates. People need to know that paying college athletes would hinder the idea and importance of making it professionally. College is not a profession, it is meant to provide students with education and prepare them for life. Paying college athletes is unfair and unreasonable in many ways.