What Are The Pros And Cons Of College Sports

Hala Warda Kristin McGregor English 90R 22 October 2015 Summary and Response#3: “College Athletes Should Be Paid” Ann Kaufmann’s article “College Athletes Should Be Paid” explains that because college football and men’s basketball programs are so profitable, the athletes who play them should be paid. One reason they should be paid is because they spend more time practicing than they study. For example, “college football and basketball players often spend upwards of 50 hours a week during the season at their sport” (452). Another reason is NCAA doesn’t allow players to accept any gifts money from anyone. For instance, the article states that “not surprising, college players are sometimes tempted to take money under the table” (452).

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.

Statistically showing, at least 100,000 college football players get hurt yearly. College football player’s should get paid to play because these players put themselves at risk for injury, college football is a job, not p.e, and it will help players adjust to college socially and economically. Colleges and the NCAA can make money selling jerseys and other souvenirs that might include the likeness of players, yet the actual players never receive a cent. Every time a football player steps onto the field, they’re risking themselves for injury.

College sports collect millions of dollars each year:Approximately around 40 million dollars a year, states and universities make. You would think that the amount of money that is made would get split between the franchises ,students and schools but unfortunately the students that play receive none of it. Theres many discussions on if college athletes should or should not get paid and because they already receive scholarships then they shouldn 't get paid. Scholarships in itself is “around 25,000-30,000 per year for example a student who 's division 1 thats over 100,000 for 4 years of college(Hartnett 1)”. So if college athletes would start getting paid then they shouldn 't get any scholarships and they would just have to pay for it with the money they are receiving.

Moreover, the unequal distribution of funds between sports carried out by college administrators is the real issue. To support this statement, “The NCAA also points out that nonrevenue men's sports are often cut to provide more funds for the two big revenue sports, football and basketball. In 2006, for instance, Rutgers University dropped men's tennis, a team with a budget of approximately $175,000. The National Women's Law Center points out that Rutgers spent about $175,000 in the same year on hotel rooms for the football team - for home games” (qtd. in Goodale). While Title IX is receiving much of the blame for recent cuts to men’s sports, the fact of the matter is that the blame really belongs to colleges’ administration teams and they way that they budget their money.

Should Collegiate Athletes Be Introduced to a Pay Grade? Due to the many amenities collegiate athletes already receive, such as special registration for classes, large scholarships, and thousands of dollars each in terms of travel and team expenses, student-athletes should not be paid. While many college sports supporters feel college athletes should be referred to in the same interest as big-time professional athletes due to their experience and the difficulty of performing well in their specific sport, a more in-depth perspective needs to be taken on the subject. Student-athletes attending college spend a great amount of time devoted to their individual sport, but even though they spend immense amounts of time working to get better on

Do college athletes throw their bodies away so programs can succeed and benefit? College athletes put more into the school than regular students. College athletes should be paid for playing because the sport they are participating in is essentially their job, they have no time to do any other activity because it will interfere with their schedules. Another reason I believe this is because of the profit the school makes off of the players. If you or your child was an athlete giving your all to a school and you were still struggling financially to where you can barely take care of yourself would you believe in paying them then?

When you think about sports programs, such as football, basketball and baseball, you often think about the amount of time, resources, and money that is put into the activities to keep them running. Over the course of a few years it is often noticed that more money is being put into these activities to provide a new environment and/or equipment needed in order for the sports to be able to function smoothly, safely, and prove to be beneficial to the students participating, the coaches, and to the people watching. Which is why in some instances extra money is put in to push that certain activity the extra mile towards success, but is the extra money put in to the athletic program proven to be beneficial to the system as a whole or could the money

However, the school is giving one set of kids a chance to further their dream and passion. Kids all over the world come from Community College to go play at a four year institution and many of them make it to the NFL and they give back to that Community College. Every college has donors and the college needs to collect money for about three years and then start building sports teams. Not only does athletics affect sports teams, but it also affect other extra curricular activities the College

Paying these college athletes will help pay for more than just extra activities. This money could help pay for students textbooks and other materials for education. Some textbooks, school supplies and even clothes for going to football banquets more often than not have to come out of the players’ pockets. Full scholarships can be great for students who get extra money from

This notion is supported by Dr. Daniel Gould, who believes that “Children who participate in sports have increased educational aspirations, closer ties to school and increased occupational aspirations in youth” (1). People against the funding of high school sports think that parents and society are placing more emphasis than ever before and, “[P]ressures athletic personnel to deviate on winning from the athlete- centered educational and personal development mission” (Gould 1). However, athletes strive to do better in class. Michael Lorenc, a high school basketball coach believes that “those who seem to have an overwhelming schedule where they’re playing maybe multiple sports, and high academic schedules, they tend to do better than those who don’t do anything extracurricularly” (Gray). Balancing sports and school makes athletes put more effort into keeping up grades while playing the sport they love.

“Never confuse the size of your paycheck with the size of your talent” a quote said by Marlon Brando. A paycheck does not determine the raw talent, discipline level, dedication, character, integrity, or personality of any one person. Although many may agree that college athletes should not receive compensation, I argue that college athletes should get paid because of the amount of money these athletes generate, the time they dedicate to their sport and education, and a heap of different reasons. Being a college athlete or an athlete of any sort at any level is no easy task.

Did you know that depending on the sport, students who play sports in college most likely have less than a 2% chance of becoming professional athletes? At middle schools, high schools and colleges across the country, everyone is arguing over whether or not students with failing grades should be allowed to play sports. In my opinion, a good education is so very important for our country’s youth, especially the athletes. Not a lot of kids are good enough to play in the top college sports programs in the country. But even those who are, still have an astonishingly low chance at making the professional leagues.

College football is one of the major sports that is seen as the best source for advertising a university. Getting rid of this would remove universities to alumni’s, and those who are big on college football. There are many of players who obtain scholarships that are not receiving a weak education and differently would not have the funds to attend college. This debate whether college football not be in universities should end, because there is no logical support to be against football in this nature. There is nothing involved with universities that motivates a student body or alumni support like football.

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.