Summary: College Athletes Should Get Paid

With new ways of viewing college sports, comes new controversies. We live in the age where televised sporting events are very common. There are countless number of football games, basketball games, etc. from the college level that are broadcasted. Because of this, the debate about whether or not college athletes should get paid has arisen. Despite the controversy, there is tremendous amounts of evidence that conclude that college athletes should not get paid. This evidence can be seen in the scholarships they are already given, the potential expenses it could cause colleges and their students, and the level of amateurism and competition that needs to be maintained. First, college athletes are already compensated enough in the form of scholarships.

Reports show the expense costs have already been increasing faster than revenues coming in. College sports teams’ revenues have increased by 83 percent in the last ten years, but these reports also show that expenses have increased faster amounting to 115 percent during the same time period (Sanderson and Siegfried 119). So, although it may seem like college sports generate a lot of revenue for these schools, they also create a lot of expenses. This is the case for the majority of schools, “Out of 340 Division I schools, only 23 athletic departments generate enough revenue to cover their expenses… 317 schools are in debt because of athletics” (Widener). Paying student-athletes would not fix these debt issues but only make them worse. In fact, of the schools that didn’t make a profit, $7.8 million was lost on average each year (Lewis and Williams). So, it can be concluded that if there is not enough money to even cover current expenditures, there is no way to pay student-athletes without increasing expenses further or finding a different way to pay for it. Other alternatives to come up with the money could include cuts in athletic scholarships given out to other college athletes who may not necessarily be paid and to increase the amount of fees collected from students (Sanderson and Siegfried 130). Although these may seem like great

One of the first things that is thought of when thinking of college sports is the level of amateurism that is involved, but if college athletes were paid this label would disappear. This quality is one of the focal points of college sports as stated in U.S. News Digital Weekly, “‘Maintaining amateurism,’ a quality the NCAA insists “is crucial to preserving an academic environment in which acquiring a quality education is the first priority’” (Neuhauser 11). Without the amateurism level, there would be no college sports. Getting rid of the amateur label would also put athletes and family member in situations where it is difficult to understand fine-print paperwork. In this sense, little protection for athletes would come from “a competitive free market in college” (Sanderson and Siegfried 133). A competitive free market doesn’t only mean little protection for athletes, but it also does harm to the athletic departments themselves. Eliminating amateurism in college sports would increase the competition to recruit players, but it would actually eliminate competition in games. Schools would pay different amounts of money to athletes depending on how much they had to give, which would cause athletes to lean towards the school that is paying more