Before making any cuts to specific sport clubs or implementing a participation fee we decided to obey two explicit rules throughout the process of the budget revision. The first rule is to ensure that athletics are equally fair throughout the school regardless of sport. Each student should feel that their
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.
In their journal “The Case of Paying College Athletes”, John Siegfried and Allen Sanderson point out many discrepancies in NCAA policies, but do not support monetary payment. They argue: “College athletes are in fact currently paid, in the sense that the majority receive grants-in-aid that cover most – although not all – of their college expenses.” (Pg. 127). After this statement, the authors detail the demanding payments varying depending on each college
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
College Varsity Athletes Should be Paid In this paper, I argue that college varsity athletes should be paid for playing sports that bring in revenue. In particular, College football and basketball because they bring in the majority of the revenue for the schools. The revenue accomplished by college sports programs continues to increase, due to the growth in interest of the NCAA basketball tournament and the college football playoffs (Berry III, Page 270). Throughout the past few years, one of the main topics debated in college sports is whether or not the athletes should be paid.
(Zimbalist) No one is making the students play a specific sport, they chose to because they enjoy the activity. If the NCAA chose to change their rules and decide to pay athletes, the next question is, is it
As we all know, college can be very expensive. With the scholarships and grants, college student-athletes can go to school for free and get their day-to-day needs such as food, housing, clothes, etc. Ackerman and Scotts, purpose is to show that college is a learning experience and with the help of college sports, the student-athletes will have a chance to grow and be successful in life rather than being exploited. However, critics believe that college student-athletes should be paid salary, like professional athletes, because they want people to see the “athletes are the rule, not the expectation” (par 11). They want the audience to think that it’s a rule for student-athletes to go play pro after two years, will no expectation.
" This quote proves that the students are bringing in lots of money and the school has plenty to give. College athletes should be paid because they contribute to the school revenues. When it comes to getting fans in the arena it all happens because of the stars coming out of the locker room. Student athletes can be looked at as advertisement because they persuade people to come watch their skills.
Should college athletes be paid? Annotated Bibliography Benedykiuck, Mike. “The Blue Line: College athletes should be paid.” Dailyfreepress.
The fight for payment of college athletes has not been quick one as more and more issues keep popping up. The NCAA has never allowed payment of its athletes, but small steps towards the overall goal has questioned the NCAA’s past. Its’ decisions has stayed constant since its founding in 1906. The first issue in this decision would not occur until 1952 when the NCAA ruled to give The University of Kentucky the ‘death penalty’ for paying their athletes. This ‘death penalty’ is a one year program ban from participation, the harshest penalty the NCAA can give.
Since it’s founding over a century ago, the NCAA has developed from a minute form of extra-curricular involvement offered to students, to a dominant entertainment industry nationwide. The growing success of this program has promoted a genuinely competitive nature, deteriorating the previous category of “amateurism”. Being that it has become such a popular program, the demand for student-athlete dedication has become exuberant. The development has established sports as the central focus for student-athletes as practices and competitions amount to 40+ hour workweeks for them. Such a heavy involvement in addition to school prevents the student-athletes from being able to work, leaving them unable to form an income to afford living expenses that scholarships cannot cover.
It includes only those funds that end up in the NCAA 's bank account.” The FCAA being the organization that would collect and distribute the capital. This research paper described why college athletes should be paid. They make personal sacrifices, and take risks in order to produce revenue for their schools.
Colleges willing to pay for their players could attract talented athletes. Students may want to go out for a sport if they know they will be paid, which could also bring talent to the field or court. With new talent, teams could win more and earn more recognition. This would benefit the players, coach and
The argument made by these two professors state that Division 1 players qualify as employees under Federal Labor Laws. Since players are under this law, the McCormick’s feel players should get financially compensated due to the physical rigors and balance education simultaneously (Cooper, 2011). It’s unbelievable how this couple thinks Division 1 athletes should get paid. The privilege to attend a university that is costly on full scholarship should be more than enough. Furthermore, student-athletes received stipends as an allowance assist with their livelihood.
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.
