Paychecks for Playmakers?

What most people don’t is that not all athletes get the full-ride scholarships that people think of. Most collegiate sports don’t even offer full-ride scholarships; instead they have a set amount of money that they can do whatever to give scholarships. According to a U.S. News article, “The average athletic scholarship is about $10,400. Only four sports offer full rides to all athletes who receive scholarships: football, men’s and women’s basketball, and women’s volleyball” (O'Shaughnessy). Just to put this into perspective, there are twenty-four total college sports, and only these 4 offer full scholarships. This showcases the rarity of a full-ride in college athletes. Looking into it even more, most of those college athletes come from low income families, “86 percent of college athletes come from below the poverty line” (Hayes 1). A college athlete's schedule is also very hectic. In an article showing the schedule of a football player, it lists, “6am-7am: Wake up,

In her article she emphasizes the fact that paying college athletes would be completely unfair to other students that attend school. She argues that the student athletes have almost everything provided for them in college and how regular students don’t have some of the opportunities that they do. She also goes on to say that the scholarship that the school provides for their athletes is payment enough, whether it is a full or partial scholarship. She also hints on the fact that being broke and having no money is all a part of the “college experience” and that everybody is struggling to make ends meet and that it everybody is working hard to make money and that a majority of the people who attend college cannot afford to go out and overindulge and spend money on the things that they want, so college athletes should not have this privilege either. Also, smaller colleges would not be able to shell out money like larger colleges could so a large school would be able to pay more for a player than a smaller college would, therefore putting the smaller college at a disadvantage.

The NCAA has been around and evolved since the beginning of college sports. This organization is a non-profitable organization, but ironically makes more than millions of profit per year. Branch states “that money comes from a combination of ticket sales, concession sales, merchandise, licensing fees, and other sources—but the great bulk of it comes from television contract”(pg. 228). Meanwhile, the student-athletes do not receive any of this money. This is the start of an unsubstantial business between universities built around amateurism.

Actions towards paying athletes are being taken and according to the TCU Daily Skiff, “There’s a legislation being passed around in the Big 12 states to provide athletes with an extra stipend in addition to their all-expenses paid education. The idea is that these students are producing truckloads of revenue for the university and should see some of the fruits of their labor.” (Jennings, par. 2) Because athletes aren’t paid for producing such money, supporters feel some of the money made should go towards helping with extra expenses. An average student athlete has to pay for phone bills, transportation, entertainment, laundry, toiletries and other things. While the typical college student has the opportunity to work, athletes don’t. Some students in college receive academic full ride scholarships, which are the same as athletic full rides, but they have time to earn extra money on the side. If these students are receiving a full ride scholarship and have the opportunity to work then an athlete should be paid a compensation for his or her efforts on the playing field.

They house you, feed you, clothe you, educate you, give you a living stipend, and you get to travel the world. These opportunities are priceless”. Most scholarships to universities provide you with every necessity, if not more, so what else could you possibly need? The athletes obtain their compensation with the benefits they already received from the scholarship, so allowing the players to be paid more than what the scholarship contributes may lead to mismanagement and the students trying to negotiate separate deals with the NCAA.

The college athletes are playing a game for the school and paying for their education at their school/ university. Others may say the athletes are paid with a free education but that's one and a million who don't pay anything. The evidence I found stated “I believe that we should provide a student-athlete with a scholarship that covers the full-cost of attendance at his or her university for the entire academic year, i.e. including summer school.(D’Andrea).” This quote is saying

Division 1 and Division 2 colleges provide over 2.9 billion dollars a year in scholarships to student athletes. Student athletes should not be compensated for participating in college sports. College athletes can receive full ride scholarships for playing their sport of choice. Is the 40,000 dollars they are receiving in scholarships not compensation; thus prompting the question is the top tier education they are being provided with, not compensation enough? Most of the thousands of students that participate in college sports compete for the love of the game, not for a paycheck. Furthermore, college athletes understand that they may not compete at the pro level, in fact, only 2 % of college athletes go on to play professionally. The main part of the term student-athletes is student. Students do not go to college expecting a check at the end of every month or to land a spot in the first round of the draft, instead the purpose is to receive an education. All things considered, student athletes should not receive compensation for playing sports in college because it would be almost financially impossible, some are already provided with money from scholarships , and finally they are being provided with an excellent higher education.

These big-time college athletes receive an education that costs normal students thousands of dollars. Author of "Students Are Not Professional Athletes.", Mitchell Horace, basically says that college athletes get to graduate without the burden of paying student loans. Many normal students are unable to complete their education because of the extensive prices and would be ecstatic to not have the burden of paying for their education if they could play a sport instead. Full ride scholarships for athletes include tuition, university fees, textbooks, and room and board which allow athletes that receive these scholarships to attend the college at little cost. These scholarships allow athletes to graduate college debt free which is an amazing advantage as many students are in debt when they graduate college. These scholarships are definitely sufficient compensation for these athletes as they give them giant advantages over normal students.

We often forget that playing a sport is not the only way to earn a scholarship. Many students are accepted for exceptional grades, involvement in the band, clubs, or being well rounded. Most of these students just have to study to keep their scholarship, while the athletes have to work hard and be a student. In a competitive market, “workers” are paid according to the value of the output they produce (Heath). It does not seem right that the college journalist can sell their piece to a paper for extra cash, or the local band can play for a few dollars at the bar Saturday night, or the biology major that takes an internship at the school lab can be profitable yet college athletes cannot. Under the NCAA they are not allowed to make any money of their skill. Any college student should be able to endorse products (Wilbon). This is why the idea of going to school for free should not be an argument against paying athletes, because that is not the case and they have earned it.

Whether or not student-athletes should be paid has been a hotly debated topic since the 1900s. College athletes spend just as much time, if not more time, practicing and devoting time and energy to sports as they do academics. For this, many athletes are rewarded with scholarship money. However, many people believe it is not enough. Should we pay student-athletes a slice of the wealth or is a full-ride scholarship enough? (Business Insider). What if the athlete gets injured? Where does the money come out of to support each athlete’s salary? The huge amount of money being generated from college sports has led some people to think that the athletes are entitled to some of that revenue. While, some think that student-athletes should be paid, others disagree for various reasons.

Most people don’t know that college athletes are already getting paid in different ways than just direct money. "A student athlete at a major conference school on a full scholarship is likely receiving a package of education, room, board, and coaching/training worth between $50,000 and $125,000 per year depending on their sport and whether they attend public or private university"(Dorfman). These athletes get training and coaching for free that professionals pay $2,000-$3,000 per week for. They also receive free schooling if they received scholarships from the school. They can also have free room which means the athletes don’t have to pay for their houses. The average college student pays $20,000 in tuition that these athletes get

College athletes don’t have to worry about paying for books, meals, or the sport equipment they use to work out with. They don’t need money to throw away on food because they possibly have a certain meal plan provided by their athletic trainers. College athletes still have time to get a job during the off-season. Many people have to pay for college and student athletes with scholarships are the lucky ones who

Student athletes commonly go to school for one reason: their love for the sport they participate in. These student athletes get scholarships from large Division 1 schools, which means things such as schooling, board, and food will be paid for by the school so the student athletes do not have to pay for these benefits themselves (Patterson). If college athletes are to be paid, it will cause unfair compensation between players who are valued or played more than others. When student athletes are rewarded with a scholarship, they have nothing school related that they would need to pay for. This can lead them to blow all of their income on unnecessary or dangerous things such as drugs and alcohol which could get them removed from the team they

Opponents against paying student-athletes say that they should not be paid because through scholarships, they're already being paid. Yes, a scholarship is a form of payment. A scholarship is nice, but it is not enough. A scholarship will not pay the bills. Moreover, unlike ordinary students without athletics, student-athletes must also many times care for families and spouses. Actually, approximately 24% of student athletes are married, and of that 24%, about 62% have children. Of the students without their own spouses or children, many must care for parents and siblings.

It is an age old debate on whether a college athlete should be paid. It is a high school student 's dream to play sports at the collegiate level. Many people question why the NCAA, coaches, and administrators are allowed to earn large amounts of money while the student athlete’s hard work and efforts are limited to a scholarship. Others feel that is should be considered a privilege that a college athlete can earn a college degree while enjoying what they love, by playing collegiate sports. Student athletes should not receive payment because they are already receiving payment in the form of an expensive athletic scholarship and are also able to receive the new cost of attendance stipend to assist with further financial burdens.