"College athletes deserve to be paid"
"Here’s Why We Shouldn’t Pay College Athletes"
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6778847/college-athletes-deserve-paid
http://time.com/money/4241077/why-we-shouldnt-pay-college-athletes/
Discussion Question(s):
Read/skim through these two articles, they each have a different opinion on whether or not college athletes should be paid to play. Then, develop your own opinion and write your answer to the question: Should college athletes be paid?
The debate over if universities private or public should pay their student-athletes a yearly salary sparks controversy throughout the nation. Many say that since they are playing for the school and by a scholarship, they are essentially paying off their education by being an athlete. Others say that the student-athletes should not be paid as it would put them in deeper financial situations, varying from individual to individual. I don't necessarily have an opinion on the question if college athletes should be paid. Student athletes are still students, young people trying to get an education, and its a great thought that their tuition, room, and board is being paid for for playing for their school. However, for the big name athletes such as Andrew Luck, Leonard Fournette, A.J. Green, and Jameis Winston that went on to the NFL, the question of should they be payed has to contemplated differently. These athletes are the face of their college for their tenure at their school, so why shouldn't be compensated? Most people tune in to watch these star athletes compete, and they are not payed anything for bringing in countless funds for their school. For Andrew Luck, he was a stand out to his great skill to run the Stanford offense, being extremely intelligent, and being a model human being for many to look up to. Stanford University was the only beneficiary of his actions, with Andrew receiving nothing. In my opinion, the whole student-athlete and money situation with the NCAA is screwed, and needs a re-work where all factors benefit, not equally, but realistically.
ReplyDeleteI believe that college athletes should be payed in some way for their performances. Star football players and basketball players bring in way more money than the scholarships they are compensated with. However, as brought up in the Money.com article, the school would lose 35% of their money if they upped the pay of athletes from a $65,000 to a $100,000 salary. However, I feel that a good way around this would be to pay them in addition to a scholarship. If they aren’t allowed to work normal jobs because of the NCAA, then they should be paid at least minimum wage during their “work hours” or practice time. This would eliminate not only the argument of should they be paid, but the argument that they should be able to make money from working in their own job.
ReplyDeleteI believe that college athletes should get paid, but not because of their play. Because if it was becasue of their pay, then some people who just do not play will get screwed over. But like what if NCAA allowed teams to have a budget and give x minimum to players. It could come out of the ticket cost to watch games. And go straight into a bank account for the players. So that they cant just blow through cash. Also in order to learn they can have some financial majors go over some expenses so that they learn how to control money. It will help them when they go to the pros n they dont know how to controll money.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that college athletes should be paid for their performances, in addition to the college scholarship and stipends. This money that is paid to players shouldn't be treated like a salary, because as the Money.com article said, the athlete with the salary would be left with $100 leftover. Although NCAA athletes are now receiving stipends that range from $2,000 to $5,000 to cover the "cost of attendance" fees outside of tuition, room and board, and book, this isn't really enough. The stipend is supposed to cover travel and pay them some money since they aren't capable of getting a part time job; however, they basically already have a job. As the ESPN article said, they are employees of the university and conferences as students. They are the ones who bring in all the money, and don't get anything in return, beyond the scholarship and possible stipend. I think that some of the money that is in these multi-billion dollar deals should go towards the players. Without them, there wouldn't be any of these media contracts. Even if it is just a little bit of the deal, I think that each of the athletes should be rewarded. The team works as a whole, and every part is vital to its function, which is why ALL players on the team should be paid. However, I believe that in addition to the minimum pay for every player, the outstanding players should be paid some extra since they are the ones performing; this way, the people who don't play aren't completely screwed over and left with no compensation. In my opinion, I think that the NCAA should change their rules about athletes being paid.
ReplyDeleteI believe that college athletes should not get paid. Most college athletes run on some type of scholarship whether it is full or partial or receive one later into their commitment to the school. With a scholarship, the school is covering certain costs of the athlete that non athlete students are not applicable for whether it is housing, dining, or books and resources. Unless it is a full scholarship in which all costs of the school is covered by the university or college. I believe that this is enough to cover for an athlete, just as athletes are not paid to play high school sports, this should remain until they reach the professional level such as the NFL. It is not fair for a college athlete to be going through many of the same classes as the non athlete students and to be getting paid just because they play a sport. Paying athletes not only takes a toll on the school but the athlete themselves. The idea of paying an athletes different amounts based upon how much they play, how they play, or what sport they play is not okay. In conclusion, athletes should not be paid in addition to any scholarship they may have because it is sole unfair to other athletes and the non athlete students who also attend that school.
ReplyDeleteI believe that college athletes should be paid, although I think it will be nearly impossible for it to happen. I think they should be paid because they are used to gain money for their universities, and even though they receive scholarships, they could be taken away any second if they get injured. Some athletes are the face of their university which was said in the article from ESPN. Athletes such as Baker Mayfield from Oklahoma are used to advertise their football teams and they receive nothing in return. Even though athletes deserve to be paid it would be almost impossible to find a fair way to pay players. For example the starting quarterback for a team is much more valuable than a 3rd string lineman, but how would you find a way to pay them fairly? Also would every university have to pay the same amount to their players, or would it differ from college to college? Hopefully one day the NCAA will find a way to fairly pay their players.
ReplyDeleteI believe that college athletes should not get paid. there is a big difference between pro and college in college you "play to play" if your going to a good program your usually on a type of scholarship and that is already paying for your school. so why would college athletes need it other then for school I get that a few big time athletes don't have a lot of money but if there not going to use that money for school then what are they using it for. They may use it for unneeded useless things. Another issue that your facing is less popular sports would not get as much money as sports like mens basketball and football that are televised and very popular. I olive if players would get paid it should be equal through all sports and all programs and it should be for school and food not other expenses that are very unneeded. Another reason why students should not be paid is because they are at college to get an education because not everyone is getting to the NFL from the NCAA. Plus not every player would get paid the same a 1st string running back is going to get paid more then a 3rd string lineman.
ReplyDeleteIn my personal opinion, although this is a very big controversy, I don't think that college athletes should be paid in "extra". I'm saying this because most successful college athletes are already recieving a lot of money to get education at really good universities. It's also important to note that these are still kids, and they are not professional athletes. They are student-athletes, and they don't do their sports as a full time job. Not only do they get most of their education paid for, but they also get other scholarships that allow them to pay very little money for food, housing and extra expenses. I'm striving to be a college athlete, and although it would be really nice to get paid for playing the sport I love and also get a really good education, the reality is that not every college athlete is good enough to get paid, and not only that but the colleges don't have money laying around to pay the thousands of athletes that attend their school. Students that are not athletes do not recieve the benefits of an "athletic-scholarship" and in my opinion that's already somewhat like paying the athlete in order for him or her to attend the school and play.
ReplyDeleteIf you are the source or cause of money, you deserve to make some of that money. It's as simple as that. So as the debate rages on about weather or not college athletes should be paid, the answer is pretty clear. For these athletes, this is their job. They can't go get a job outside of school, they go to class then they go to lifting, they have practice after that and they haven't even started their homework yet. And those multi-million dollar deals they bring in? They don't get any of it. And as Michael Wilbon mentioned, only the players who actually make their school money deserve to be paid. As the athletes, it is their ability and their sacrifice that make the money. What happens to the scholarship once a player tears his ACL? It disappears, so the only thing close to resembling payment disappears and they are left with no money and potentially no education. Is it fair that a receiver from Alabama will make more than a receiver from Kent State considering they make the same sacrifices? Not necessarily, but capitalism isn't always fair. It's never been about fairness, it's been about money and maximizing value. So, as that receiver from Alabama makes his school millions, he is entitled to some of that money. Scholarships are great, but they aren't solely reserved for athletes. Academic scholarships exist too, so the same benefits that exist for the star receiver of Alabama will exist for a student with a 4.0 GPA. That appears fair on the surface, however the other student doesn't have a schedule anywhere near as difficult as the player and if he tears his ACL he continues to get his education. The answer is simple, the method of payment is complicated, but don't let that cloud your vision. If you create money for someone else, you are entitled to a chunk of it. There's no way around it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that college athletes should not be paid. These are students, athletes, but not employees. Football is not their job.Money should not be the primary concern of these athletes. Most talented college athletes are attending a top school, having everything covered for them, and doing what they love: playing sports. The estimated cost of all of this could total as much as 100,000 dollars. Wouldn't that be nice to have covered for you? In addition, if it were to be decided that college athletes should be paid, how would it work? Would some people make more money than others? With players being paid unequally, there would most definitely be conflicts. I'm sure that the colleges do not want players to be fighting over money, rather to be focused on the season ahead.
ReplyDeleteI think that they should be paid. They are making massive amounts of money for the school in games that are clearly not just 'amateur' sports. These players are not even getting a good education because they spend so much time on football. So, it's not justified to say that it is enough to pay for education; they are not getting a good education. Even some teachers don't give the kids real classes or assignments. The colleges are taking advantage of the players and make huge amounts of money in return. These kids should be treated like amateur athletes if they won't be paid like pros. But they are treated like pros and played like amateurs. Some of these guys will get injured and will not be paid in the way that they deserve and that they sacrificed for. They should be paid; it's the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteThese players being in a ton of revenue for the school and team as a whole so it's only fair they be paid for their hard work. In past articles we have read about football players specifically, do not get the education they should because they are focusing on sports. If they got paid that would make up for the fact. While I can understand those who think they should not be paid, I ask the question: if you will not pay them is it ok for their performance to drop? The answer is probably not so why not pay them? It doesn't make sense.
ReplyDeleteI do think that college athletes should be paid. There are many reasons but the main reason is money. The schools and NCAA both make hundreds of thousands of dollars off their athletes. It is only fair that they get paid at least with more than a paper education. Some critics argue that they are still students and shouldnt be distracted. I agree with this. However, if athletes got paid, they would not only retain their average focus on school but probably focus more on academics in order to keep being paid.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this is a delicate topic, in which both sides should be heard. Each side has a valid argument for their reasoning. People in favor of paying college athletes claim that the athletes, who often come from financially struggling backgrounds, are money makers for their colleges and the NCAA, and that they should be compensated for their work. The other side says that the athletes are already getting into college for free on full scholarships, so why do they need any more money? I believe that there should be a flat compensation for all athletes, regardless of gender or spot, from the schools based on the total revenue created, regardless of how minute the stipend is. This compensation would be in addition of whatever athletic or academic scholarships that the athletes have earned. So, who is right? Both are in their own ways. It is wrong that colleges make their athletes commit their future to them, and the least that the college could do is to take care and make sure that their athletes are fully taken care of, so that they can just focus on their academics and sports. There needs to be more debate on this topic, and it will for sure not go away anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think that college athletes should definitely be paid. They are making enormous amounts of money for the school as well as the NCAA and not getting credit for it. In fact, most of them still end up paying the school just to go there. On top of this, athletes devote so much of their time practicing and training for their sport that it leaves them with little to no time to actually get a job and make money for themselves while they are at college. They also don't have much time for their academics. In some cases, when athletes aren't able to maintain their grades due to their commitment to their sports, some teachers make fake classes or "paper" classes where the athletes don't actually do any work or learn anything but just receive a good grade to boost their GPA's to make them eligible to play for the school and make it money. In cases such as these, when the athlete ends up graduating, they either continue to pursue a career in their sport or, like most of them, end up searching for a job with a false education that hasn't prepared them for the workforce. All in all, college athletes not being payed hurts the athletes in more ways than one and sets them up for failure in the future.
ReplyDeleteI do not think college athletes should be payed for their sport participation. I believe that they were accepted in to the school to play sports, but most importantly participate in school. If you go to this school on a scholarship for academics you would not be payed for your good grades therefore you shouldn't be payed for playing on a college team. Some players receive around $1000-$2000 every year for their participation in a college sports team and they may put it into non academic resources therefore the school is wasting money on them when they could be putting it into more scholarships for underprivileged students. NFL players are working for their money where as college football is a extracurricular activity to their valued education.
ReplyDeleteI believe college athletes should get paid on top of their scholarship, because it’s unfair for the players to create so much revenue for the school, and not even get paid a penny in return. I think the payments should be based off how many plays you played in a game. If you play 10 plays you get x amount, 20 plays y amount, etc. In 2015, the Alabama football team made nearly 50 million in income, and not one player was paid. There's no way the program could’ve racked up nearly that much money without the caliber of the players on the team, and how they performed. Derrick Henry, running back at the racked up a total of nearly 2300 total yards, and 28 touchdowns. On top of that, he also won the heisman trophy. From these two statistics alone, he probably made the Crimson Tide millions of dollars. It’s unfair to the players, like Derrick Henry, on the team who earned this cash for the school, and get nothing in return. Another example is Shabazz Napier in 2014. At the time, he was the face of the championship Uconn men’s basketball team. He was never paid, and sometimes, he wouldn’t have the money to go and buy meals. In an interview, Shabazz said “There’s nights where i’m not able to eat.” This player created millions of dollars of revenue for the school, earned the school a national championship, and he couldn’t even afford a meal. He gets nothing in return for making the school millions of dollars, and as a result, he went to bed hungry. I’m sure this is the case for many other college athletes, Shabazz was just one of the only players to say something, or have the chance to say something. After reviewing these two cases, it’s obvious college athletes should get paid.
ReplyDeleteI believe that college athletes should be reimbursed for their efforts but I don't believe that they should be directly paid. I also don't believe a scholarship and room and board will cut it. This brings up the question how can we further reimburse these student athletes with keeping some integrity to the game. My solution is to let student athlete's own their own name. What I mean by this is that, if a person wishes to make money off of a student athlete's name or likeness that the student athlete should get a cut of the profit. This way it pushes student athletes to build up their likeness and play on the field. If a no name kid starts making plays on the football field, people are going to notice and these people will start to make t-shirts with this player's name on it and he/she will receive part of the profit off of these shirts. This will also push players to take actual classes like marketing, so they can market themselves to the public and start to gain some revenue. Paying student athletes directly is just an unrealistic expectation by anyone. The NCAA will never change that rule because they can not make money off of. It is more likely to see the NCAA let the players own their name. Overall I believe that this is the best solution to the current problem of whether student athletes should be paid.
ReplyDeleteCollege athletes should definitely be paid. As we have seen, the college sports industry is worth billions and billions of dollars. What college athletes actually end up with is a useless college degree since they were allowed more lenient grading and were offered "paper classes" in some cases (ex. FSU). All this adds up to is just 4 years of wasted time. Sure, the athletes get to improve their game and have the opportunity for an education, but if professional leagues allowed athletes to skip college and go right to the league, these athletes would be able to improve their skills and actually get paid for the hard work they are doing. The college athlete system mimics slavery all too closely. Athletes who really need the scholarship are trapped in this contract where they receive very minimal compensation in exchange for full effort on the sports team. Should an athlete who really needs a scholarship decide to quit her/her team, all he/she is left with is college bills which he/she can't pay and a couple years of wasted time where neither career nor financial standing was improved upon. A salary, no matter how much of a logistical nightmare it may be, is what college athletes deserve. Those who are worth more should get paid more and vice versa. We live in a free country, not one that targets those less fortunate and steals money from college students.
ReplyDeleteAthletes should not be paid at their college, no matter how good they are. They are essentially already being payed for their contributions for they schools sport. Big named schools have an extremely high tuition rate, and an average American can not easily afford to pay for this. The high skilled athletes almost always get a full time scholarship to play for these schools. The athletes are saving up to $65,000 when getting the benefit of a scholarship. Thus, the scholarship basically is a salary for these athletes. The only way a salary would be necessary would be if the athletes scholarships were to be taken away. If that happened, then they would be taxed on the money that they make, and in the end will most likely lose money compared to the full time scholarship. The payment of student athletes will only bring negative effects, and will make a statement that the sport is more important than their academics.
ReplyDeleteI think the best solution is a balance. Keep the current scholarship system, but allow athletes to get paid if they are used in advertising/merchandise. This way, star athletes can be more fairly reimbursed for their work. It also gets around the issue of there being too many athletes for schools to pay. Players would also gain experience in marketing themselves, which will help later in life. This system would be a win-win for players and colleges. Players get repaid for the money they make the school, and schools don't have to deal with any of the logistics of paying all the players.
ReplyDeleteI think that college athletes should not be paid. I think that they are already being paid for their share by having a full ride scholarship, or at least a partial scholarship. Maybe there could be a compromise such as providing more food on campus or meal plans that the athletes dont have to pay for, but I dont believe in the athletes getting a pay check for doing something they love, and already are being "paid" to do with their scholarship. If an athlete is going out of his or her way to do extra things for the school such as advertisements and other extras the school should then consider giving the athlete a small pay check, however they are overall already being paid in the sense that they have a scholarship.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the NFL should have charged Ezekiel Elliot. There is not enough evidence to prove that he should be punished, so he should not have been punished in the first place. The statement, "Innocent until proven guilty," is the perfect fit for this situation. He was not proven guilty, so why would the charge him? I agree with their decision to postpone the suspension because even though he is not guilty at the moment, he may be proven guilty later, which in that case would call for consequences.
ReplyDelete