College Athletes Get Paid

The battling of whether or not to pay college athletes has been on the table for a long time. NCAA has been fighting against those who believe that athletes should be paid for playing the sport. NCAA has won this case a few times before. It is unfair for the athletes to put in all the work and not get anything beneficial to them. The athletes who are not getting paid do not have hardly any freedom outside of practice. In the articles, “Should College Athletes be Paid” by Joe Nocera, “Should College Football Players Get Paid”, “Compensation for College Athletes”, and “Should College Athletes Be Paid to Play” by Kenneth Cooper, they explain the benefits and drawbacks to paying college athletes. Because colleges, coaches, and programs receive an outstanding amount of money, they should be able to get paid for their efforts. In fact, Coaches and NCAA get rich, while the athletes get nothing. The college athletes are responsible for the money NCAA and coaches receive, but they do not even get a penny for their hard work. Coaches and assistant coaches drown in money while the players get nothing: “The coaches for these teams earn millions… even the assistant coaches make hundreds of thousands… yet the labor force--and that’s what the

College athletes are responsible for their education. School should be the priority first and not the sport. According to Nocera, “Paying students to play would turn them into employees, shifting their focus away from academics” (9). The college athletes work more than 60 hours a week just on practicing. This makes them exceed way above an average employee. College athletes who deserve to get paid is simply unfair: “According to those who support the idea of paying student athletes, this is inherently unfair” (Nocera 4). The college athletes are the reason why NCAA is rich with all the money. They do all the work to get the recognition for the brand they stand