Argument about whether college athletes should be paid: free sample essay, 1286 words (2023)

There has been heated debate over whether college athletes should be paid. Many people believe that scholarships and grants are enough to get young athletes to play in college. But after all, the scholarships are worth about $10,000 to $30,000 a year, plus a million dollars for career support in your post-college career. But on top of that, student-athletes get a number of special perks while in college, like staying in fancy hotels, being seen on prime-time national television, and all the other perks that come with being a star athlete. It is difficult to rate them all.

But with certain college sports generating millions of dollars for college athletics, many feel that athletes are being manipulated. Assuming that a typical football scholarship is worth $30,000 per year and that colleges and universities receive $100,000 per year for each player who receives a scholarship (this figure is only a projection and the actual number may be higher), the college or university receive $100,000 per player per player Earnings of $70,000 per year per scholarship. The NCAA's annual revenue is close to a billion dollars. 81% of that income comes from media rights. Come to think of it, no money would have been made without the student-athletes competing. But athletes do not earn money for their performances and games. In 2010, the NCAA awarded CBS a $10.8 billion contract.

Determining the exact value of an athlete to a college is difficult. High schools and universities make a lot of money from sports equipment alone, while students who sell their numbers get less than a penny. It would be an understatement to say that student athletes were not taken advantage of in this situation. College sports programs earn millions of dollars from television and advertising contracts. They also receive millions of dollars in donations and philanthropy from sports fans, and the NCAA's revenue from college basketball programs is even more staggering.

This is where it gets really interesting. An athlete may be "disciplined" for selling tickets to fans on game day, but how much do the NCAA regents make for the student-athlete effort? The reality is that college athletes pay a significant portion of the salaries of everyone the NCAA recruits. One of the reasons for the salary is the time the athlete spends playing the sport. On average, they work 40-60 hours a week. This means that it will be extremely difficult to find another job. In fact, the NCAA prohibits students on athletic scholarships from getting a job.

However, this only applies to students who receive sports scholarships, of whom only around 33 per cent are athletes. The other 67 percent were more difficult. They spend 40-60 hours a week as scholarship athletes, but they have to pay for everything else. Scholarship students will receive tuition, fees, room and board, and books, but non-scholarship students must pay for all of these expenses. How can we expect these students to secure enough money for this when they don't even have time for a real, profitable job? It's no wonder we have $1.2 trillion in student debt and 71% of college graduates in 2012 have student debt.

Another thing is the fair market value of the athlete. According to Businessinsider.com, players on the Louisville men's basketball team are worth $1.5 million. The study used the NBA's collective bargaining agreement, under which players receive at least 49 percent of their earnings, which are then divided equally among the Louisville Basketball League's 13 scholarship players. Another study by Texas A&M University found that Johnny Manziel brought the school $37 million in media exposure during the 2012 football season. Can you guess how much Manziel made out of $37 million? Zero and nothing for the money he produced for the school.

Less than 2 percent of college athletes end up going pro. So the question is, is it worth playing sports in college? The risk of injury is a very real threat, especially in contact sports such as football, ice hockey and lacrosse. In fact, if you consider it a sport, cheerleading has more catastrophic injuries (73 percent of them) than any other college sport. Another risk is, as previously mentioned, the risk of higher student debt due to the inability to find full-time employment. For the few athletes who have found success in professional sports, playing sports in college is worth the risk, but for many, the payoff is not great.

According to the NCAA, 96 percent of the revenue from the contract will go to student-athletes. But how does that money benefit student-athletes? Where did all the money go? Michael Wilbon said, "BCS' new contract with ESPN is based in part on paying schools/conferences more money for so-called 'population centers. % for six sessions in 2011.' These population centers are where the most people are, which in turn makes the most money for the NCAA. Why would the NCAA do that? Because the NCAA is a greedy corporation, it's not for the students, it's for the money.

The issue of paying players in any sport, including those that lose money, is used as an argument against paying players in college sports. It is true that not every sport can make money. In fact, most sports actually lose money to their schools. If every athlete in the NCAA was paid the minimum salary, it would amount to about $5.6 billion a year. It only has $2.7 billion in scholarships a year, so the program doesn't work.

Another plan is to pay only athletes who earn money for the school. Best take from Michael Wilbon's ESPN article: "I'd like to see a small portion of the revenue shared by the people who generate it." If all the players on the football and men's basketball teams were paid minimum wage, it would cost the school no more than $120,000, which is almost nothing compared to the school's athletic budget.

Some argued that if college athletes were paid, they would no longer be considered amateurs. But why is there a problem? Isn't it good to be considered a professional? In 1986, the International Federation changed its stance on amateur sports, allowing professional athletes to compete in the Olympic Games. The Olympics are still thriving after the changes, so why hasn't the NCAA changed. If NCAA athletes are no longer considered amateurs, they lose their tax-exempt status.

Most professional sports associations are for-profit, but there are some exceptions, such as the NFL, which is tax-exempt. If the NCAA follows the NFL's trade organization model, it could regain its lost tax-exempt status. So why not? Because they don't want to do anything when they already have everything on their plate. Students must be paid. Those who make money make money and those who don't make money don't make money. It's a pretty simple concept, but the NCAA is very strong and very persistent. It probably won't happen in the near future, but maybe one day the athletes worth the money will get it.