Discussion on Whether College Athletes Should Be Paid Or not

A topic that is well debated upon is why college athletes should be paid or not. Every year college becomes more and more competitive for sports. For the most part to have a good sports team, you need good athletes. If these competitive athletes are helping the college with income and becoming well known, should college athletes be paid, coming from the money that they generated, or is a scholarship enough for the athletes? I personally was going to become a college athlete but didn’t for other reason. After hearing about some debate with this on the social media, I wanted to do some research myself and find out different information from different perspectives. High school seniors, especially athletes, have a large personal stake in this for the reason that they’re in the middle of deciding what they want to do with a good portion of their life. I plan to cover the time that an average college athlete must put into college and the statistics of what some colleges bring in from broadcasting sports. My goal at the end of my research is to have the readers on the same page I’m on pertaining to this topic and to be able to have an answer that's backed up by solid evidence. There are many different arguments that come into the payroll. This is a discussion can have many ends to it.

To start we can look at the reasons to why college athletes should be paid. College athletes rely depend on their physical prosperity to perform and proceed onward to professional sports. In this way, for these competitors, genuine damage can be the distinction between an expert profession and a lifetime of obligation. There is a genuine misguided judgment that athletes graduate with no obligation or that they contemplated on a full grant. The basic case is that the competitors who don't make professional careers for the most part battle for money. Thus, paying college athletes will provide them a more secure future. This makes me wonder, do college athletes have the same time and effort as a full-time working person might? How many hours does an average college athlete really have to put in, excluding any academic work?

In the article, “The Case for Paying College Athletes”, Ben Cohen discusses how college athletes are no different from a full-time working person. Specifically, Cohen argues that the least colleges could do is pay their athletes if they’re going to be out of class for the majority of the time. Cohen states that “if the average NCAA college football player in Division One spends over 40 hours a week on their game, then they are working the same amount as those in full-time employment do.” In spite of the fact that some people believe playing a college sport and working a full-time job are two completely different things, Cohen insists that there is absolutely no difference and they should both be treated the same. In sum his view is that college athletes put in more than enough hours into a sport for them to be getting paid. I agree. In my view college athletes should get paid. For instance, in the event that a full-time working person is getting paid a normal salary and college athletes are putting as much time as the working person is, why shouldn't they at least get paid minimum wage? In addition, it’s almost impossible for college athletes to put in the hours recommended by their teacher to focus on a certain class with all the practices and games they have to attend. Some might object, of course, on the grounds that college athletes have their own responsibility of figuring out when to focus on school. Yet, from what this source states, I would argue that there is no difference between a college athlete and a working man.

What Cohen is saying is that an average college athlete puts in the same amount of time as a full-time working person. College athletes have mandatory practices that they must go to everyday. These duties that are required to be satisfied by college athletes need time and energy. As Cohen describes it, “Despite athletes being primarily recruited into college based on their athletic abilities and enjoys a hugely subsidized tuition fee, the amount of energy and time they give coupled with their commitment justifies a compensation of more than just tuition subsidy.' Overall from what Cohen stated, I find it reasonable to have college athletes get paid because of the time and energy that they put in, according to this source. It almost seems like they don't have much time to put into their classes. I personally never knew that college athletes still need some type a major until after I did my research. This makes sense due to the fact that college athletes are considered students at a college, and they still have to take classes just like all the other students a college.

An enormous demographic of college athletes feels sure that they ought to be made up for their work on the field. College athletes are exposed to stressful planned practice sessions, travel, and games. They perform, and their improvements help the college's evaluations. By helping raise the college’s appraisals through their elite performance at the college level, it should at least be compensated. They never have money to buy a pizza with the guys or for clothes. College athletes have to worry about day to day expenses like cloths, food, etc.

Offutt basically is saying that college athletes should receive some type of award for the work that they put into long and stressful practices every day. Attending college in general, there are daily expenses that both students and athletes that they must worry about. The students solve this issue by getting a job, but athletes are not allowed to get a job and even if they were, not many hours would be put into work because of the mandatory practices and workouts every day. Then comes the expenses of food, clothing, and miscellaneous things that athletes won’t be able to afford because they have no source of income. This seems fair to me just because clothing and food are practical things that every person needs just to survive. In this case, I’m not saying athletes need to be paid in order to get clothing and food, but maybe if the college itself provided three meals a day and some sports clothing to the athlete, it would sound a bit reasonable.

A good example is the college player A.J. Green who played football at University of Georgia in 2009. Green was “suspended for the first four games of this season for selling his jersey from the 2009 Independence Bowl to an agent for amateur athletes.” The suspension affected his scholarship that he had received from the college. The couch later in an interview stated that “college athletes are not supposed to receive payments for their talents…!”. The controversy around this is that Green wasn’t getting a payment for playing on the field, but just sold his jersey and because of that a suspension was put on him.

I think that It would at least make sense to allow Green to sell his jersey and make money off his own merchandise rather than the corporations making money off it. I mean if Green isn’t getting any type of salary for playing, and does his job as an athlete everyday on the field, why is selling his own merchandise, that he earned, a violation? Are big corporations just making money off an athlete’s name or are they making it off the ability that the athlete has to offer for the college?

Some college sports are viewed as businesses by many. A good amount of college games is believed to acquire a great deal of money adding up to millions of dollars all of which goes to the school. This money is mostly created by means of worthwhile TV contracts. Athletes at these schools are an urgent part in making these livelihoods. In that capacity, does it really make sense not to pay them? In the year 1981, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) basketball tournament recorded nine million dollars, in 1997, it recorded two hundred and fifteen million dollars and as of now records around seven hundred and fifty million dollars.

Athletes seem to be generating the most amount of money for the NCAA. The NCAA is increasing in revenue each year in millions, but it seems like most of the increase of money comes from the advancements of the businesses. How can some athletes over multiple years keep generating more and more money? It really comes down to the fans themselves and how they support the college athlete, whether it’s buying a jersey or watching them on TV. Either way the NCAA has been using the fans over the years to bring in more revenue. This makes to me just because the teams today with the biggest fan base are the teams that can afford nice equipment and better gyms. But if college athletes are bringing in this much money to the college, I think it would only be fair to pay them a small amount of what earned. If the NCAA is making “seven hundred and fifty million dollars” from viewers dedicating their time into watching these athletes play, it would make sense to me if the players got something from the millions of dollars that is generated off them.

The idea that the college grants offered to college athletes isn't completely true. Collegiate Athletes Coalition, CAC, in an ongoing report, uncovered that the grants offered by National University Athletic Affiliation (NCAA) were around two thousand dollars not exactly the cost expense of being in college every year. This implies the athlete needs to take care of the gap in expense. In this manner the full-athletic grant program does not give a free education and consequently offers the conversation starter whether the grant is a satisfactory type of pay for the athletes.

In the year 1991, a survey demonstrated that a huge level of the statistic had either 'accepted under hand compensation during their college careers or knew of college athletes or colleagues who had received such payments'. This study infers that the athletes, despite the fact about the NCAA guidelines, still receive money from somewhere in order to cover what the NCAA was supposed to.

This makes me wonder what a “full scholarship” in college really means. What exactly does a full scholarship cover or are full scholarships a first come, first serve for college athletes? Either way isn't called a “full scholarship” for a reason?

The other side of this states that college athletes should not be paid. Even some college athletes believe that this is true. Casey Harman is a Clemson baseball graduate, and current Chicago Offspring player, 'College is all about teamwork and if you got paid it would turn individualized. The best thing about college is the family you develop with your teammates, and if you were getting paid you wouldn't have that'. Harmen stated in the interview that, he likewise expressed, 'The money the schools make goes to upgrading facilities and getting equipment and all that. If students got paid, they wouldn't be concerned with schoolwork at all and probably wouldn’t do well or even worry about it since they’re getting paid.”

Harman believes that college is for preparation for the professional league and that money would be the main focus instead of education. He underlines that it is the venturing stone to proceeding onward to the universe of pro athletics. Reading this makes me think how college students view money and education, which one will have an impact on themselves the most.

Likewise, another argumentative point is that understudies who get paid at the school level would never again be considered as 'amateur players'. This may bring the idea that schools are purchasing performance and titles which would demolish the notoriety of schools. At the point when an athlete is paid, that would be viewed as expert. Also, the contention keeps on expressing that school sports is tied in with playing for the love of the game and paying competitors would completely put down that idea.

This makes sense just because college application essays include the athletes to explain why they have such a passion for that sport. If college athletes started getting paid I think that the love of sport would be replaced with a certain amount of money.

Shelby Webb is a college softball player who not only receives a dorm for free and tuition fully paid, but she receives special treatment like 'excused absences and tutoring assistance' that a normal college student does not receive most of the time. This shows me that some college athletes actually have a pretty smooth transition into college, compensating for the commitment that their must put in for the school.

Another question to bring up is where does the money that the NCAA generate all go to? Well the “NCAA distributes money among its member institutions in numerous ways, such as providing scholarships, funding team travel and lodging expenses for championship games and assisting with academic programs for student athletes.” The money generated is not only used for the student athletic programs, but for the academic part of the university. In specific on average, “football brings in $31.9 million in revenue, while men's basketball (the second-highest grossing sport) comes in a distant second at $8.1 million. For reference, women's basketball brings in $1.8 million, while rowing brings in just $932,646.” 

I’m assuming sports are where most of the income is generated from for most colleges. If the colleges main revenue us being spent on bettering academic programs and improving certain facilities of the college, then I think college should stick with that and not have to worry about salaries for athletes. The athletes themselves are enrolled and still taking classes at their university, so improvements will not only benefit students, but they will also benefit the athletes.

If college athletes were to be paid, I can think of some issues that most colleges would have to face. For example, what amount every athlete must be paid or what about athletes who stay in the team however never play? Does one sport get paid more than another sport?

College athletes are most importantly students. Also, they are competitors. In this manner, students should concentrate on their need which is learning and getting decent grades and not getting a decent pay without decent grades. College programs produce their salary from sports, “most of the money is used to improve the college”, for example, improving the school offices. This seems like it advantages the entire school as opposed to one person. By paying players, a few colleges probably won't most likely bear to pay top quality competitors. After reading this article I assume that not all colleges will not be able to have an opportunity to get to the top-level groups because of financial issues.

According to Cork I think that colleges would be ranked off of income of the college, which would defeat the purpose of the whole sport. I don't think colleges should have their athleticism be based on money, I think it should be based solely on the athleticism that athletes have to offer.

In the final analysis, college athletes are constantly mindful of the arrangement at whatever point they are joining up with university. The athletes acknowledge their duty to concentrate to pick up a degree, participate in a school sports life while the college acknowledges the obligation of the understudy's educational cost expense, feast, and boarding just as medical coverage. I think if a college is dishonest about what they offer in a full scholarship then I think i would be fair for the college to at least ow it to the athletes and pay them.

The issue of paying or not paying college athletes is yet a gigantic discussion and may never be indisputably settled. In any case, there are a few techniques that can be thought of to guarantee that there is reasonable play for every one of the gatherings included. College athletes can be designated a little stipend as an expansion to the grants they get. This portion of additional assets would adjust for the deficiency that athlete experience from, the quantity of assets that their grants as of now spread as talked about above. College athletes can be paid as a month to month stipend. This might help college athletes pay for smaller things here and there.

The NCAA can introduce a professional sports league for underage athletes. This implies presenting an expert class for competitors beneath a specific age. This would give colleges a chance to enroll athletes and pay them at a certain salary, instead of enrolling them right after high school when they are still young. Colleges could additionally give the competitors some free scholastic classes to guarantee that they can support themselves after their games playing days are finished. The Couches can likewise take a cut from their big rewards and potentially share their rewards as motivators to players. All things considered, the players would make the couches look great and acquire the rewards so somewhat motivation would go far in improving life for the college athletes.

Also, colleges can present privileged degrees for competitors. Privileged degrees will be focused to competitors as acknowledgment. This acknowledgment is explicitly equipped towards the competitor's commitment to the school in the games. While conceding college athletes, Colleges look at the athletic ability that an athlete has to offer, not the academic side of them. This implies athletic school admissions are normally not unfathomably arranged for scholarly ability. This mean that most athletes graduate with below average degrees. If an athletic scholarship involved an academic reward, it can help improve the overall rating for the university.

From this argumentative essay, one can assume that college athletes put in a large amount of physical and mental exhaustion. Ben Cohen discussed how there is really no difference between a college athlete and a working man are no different than a college athlete. On average “the NCAA college football player in Division One spends over 40 hours a week on their game, then they are working the same amount as those in full-time employment do.” When I think of a college athlete I don’t think of the academic side of them, just the athletic side. After reading what Ben Cohen brings up, I realize that not only does a college athlete have to deal with the stress of physically performing better each practice, but also performing academic wise. After Ben Cohen specifically said that “they are working the same amount of a full-time employee” it made me really think, if a college athlete is putting just as many hours in as a full-time working person, shouldn’t they receive some type of reward? But at the same time a college athlete is still a student at a university going to classes. Is there not such think a college student also working a job to help pay off tuition that college athletes don’t have to worry about? When it comes to deciding to pay a college athlete, thing to consider is how the college itself would be able to function financially. Cork Gianies mentioned how most of the money generated from sports generally “is used to improve the college”. The if the athletes were to get paid, then the colleges wouldn’t be able to afford to upgrade things like offices or classrooms. I personally think that, most of the time, a college’s reputation comes from what they have to offer academically. After conducting fair amount of research, I personally think that college athletes should not be paid, and colleges should stick to what they’re doing right now. just because they are still no different than other college students who have jobs. They still have the same, or even more opportunities to academic advising and tutoring.