Why or why not? You agreed for tuition, room and board, books and to follow the rules of the NCAA as compensation.
Merchandise sales in the millions. One where going in, the laborer knows that he or she will be under-compensated and one that greatly benefits ownership, but one that has the mandatory training program that all must go through in order to financially capitalize on their own talents.
But if you compensate student-athletes monetarily, how do you decide who gets paid? But a small reality check in thought at least would give us a new starting point to change the discussion of the wrongs of how college athletics is set up.
Would athletes be paid differently depending on the sport they play?
Will each player receive the same amount? To help them win. College student-athletes are given a rare opportunity. I spoke with a retired financial manager who has had some dealings with the NCAA, and he shot down my theory of the answer to the "pay for play" dilemma in college athletics. This is where we are.
They and their families choose to do this.
Those who say college student-athletes should not be paid argue that they receive scholarships as a form of payment for their talents. An unfair one, but it is consensual. But I do find it interesting as to why so many are widely opposed to this idea.
Do the same for all of the other college sports, and the professional equivalent to that sport comes up as the answer. Many of these athletes come from urban, low-class families and often leave school early because of the unimaginable pressure to be the main provider for their family at a young age.
There are very few businesses that are fair across the board to the people who work for them. What do you think? Whether student-athletes should be paid is an ongoing debate often brought up during championship seasons, especially the college football playoffs and the basketball post-season.
Most profits from college athletics do not go towards academics. We need to stop looking at college as it relates to athletics as an educational aperture and look at it for what it has become: Leave a comment and debate your position!
But you, college athlete, decided for this part of your career not to get paid for it. The debate over whether student-athletes should be paid could go on and on.
This has been our reality for decades. A timeout of the regular-season college football game between the University of Michigan at the University of Iowa Photo: Money will only add to this fact.
Many former collegiate players were compensated, but some felt it was inadequate and they were owed more.
It is not their job to play sports; it is an extracurricular activity that is pursued while pursuing a higher education. Is it by performance or position?"College athletes should be paid because they generate money for their schools." That's the argument we hear constantly, and if that's the.
There was a particular focus on the issue of whether college athletes should be paid. For example, the Selected Proceedings, which can be found at mint-body.com /, include articles in favor of paying college athletes* and arguments against.†.
Jan 30, · University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban today makes more than $7 million per year. However, in the early days of college sports paying coaches was as frowned upon as paying student-athletes. The debate as to whether or not college athletes should be paid has really heated up in recent years.
It seems to arise every March when the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament arrives, and once. At this point, the debate over whether college athletes should be paid really doesn't change anything.
It's not about finding the right answer because there is no right answer. People who think college student-athletes should be paid often say the students’ names and images are used on products and in advertising, among other things, so they should receive some of the profits.Download