A debate on whether college athletes should be paid or not

The primary objective of going to a college is to get a higher education and learn things that will help you get into the career field of your choice.

Whether or not college athletes should get paid

Most profits from college athletics do not go towards academics. What do you think? The money to pay athletes must come from somewhere, which might put the least-popular college programs at risk of being cut. If salaries were given, then these college student-athletes would have to pay taxes.

Furthermore, those who debate against paying student-athletes say it would change the very nature of college athletics. Coaches receive bonuses for breaking records, reaching the offseason, and winning the big games; the athletes receive none of it, writes Tyson Hartnett for The Huffington Post.

Cash or a salary could be spent on wants rather than necessities, potentially leading the athletes into a debt they would not have with the benefit of a scholarship. Most colleges are non-for-profit, meaning that all money that the college takes in goes back into investing in the school programs, paying professors, etc.

Report this Argument Con I accept. Where would the money even come from? That, in turn, can deprive other students of their chance to gain the education and experience at the college of their dreams, since their desired program will no longer be offered, says Anderson. Instead, they go to the coaches, athletic directors, and some administrators, reports Edelman.

For times sake, I will post an argument I made from another debate I have had on this subject. 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.

Access Denied

They are already receiving tuition discounts that many non-athletes have to pay themselves. Sports are a huge part of college extracurricular activities. Student-athletes would be paid for this and all the additional benefits they provide for their schools.

The next year, they may transfer to another school with an even higher offer. There are various clubs, honor societies, and organizations in college.

You should not be paid to go to college, simply because you play a sport. The debate over whether student-athletes should be paid could go on and on.

Student-athletes are going to school to learn, and many are lucky enough to do so for reduced cost, given the often generous athletic scholarships. They are still in college—which is a privilege in itself—while pursuing their dreams of playing a sport. Still, colleges and universities use their athletic success to promote their school and entice potential applicants.

Student-athletes do not need to receive huge salaries like their coaches; rather, they could still be paid a reasonable amount relative to how much the program makes.

Why or why not? College student-athletes are given a rare opportunity. The cost of paying student athletes is greater than the gain from paying student athletes. If scholarships were taken out of the deal, and only salaries were given, then it would be more fair and affordable for the university, right?

Them getting paid will help to make up for their lack of not being able to get a part-time job during that particular sports season.

An education is payment enough. Student-athletes are the ones working hard out on the court and field.

Would athletes be paid differently depending on the sport they play? If these athletes were paid, it would change their motives as students.

They are essentially already being paid, which means that a salary for playing a sport should not exist.

However, there are other types of extracurricular activities in college. It is not their job to play sports; it is an extracurricular activity that is pursued while pursuing a higher education.

Yes, pay would vary, just as the universities with the more successful teams receive more television time or money than those with less successful teams.

Should College Student-Athletes Be Paid? Both Sides of the Debate

Therefore, to keep things fair, college athletes should not be paid. Pro Yes, college athletes should be paid. Many people claim that college athletes deserve to be paid.Since we’re in the heart of March Madness, now is a great time to debate whether college student-athletes should be paid or not.

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.

Yes, college athletes should be paid. If it weren't for them, their college would be making no money from games. Them getting paid will help to make up for their lack of not being able to get a part-time job during that particular sports season.

Should NCAA Athletes Be Paid? More UNLV guard Bryce Dejean-Jones shoots against California forwards Richard Solomon and David Kravish during the NCAA Tournament in San Jose, Calif., on March 21, Watch video · Former college stars on professional indoor football squads make about $ per game—with a $25 bonus if the team wins.

Outside the NBA, players in the professional developmental league—one step from making a NBA squad—make about $43, per year. The college scholarship model may not be so bad for student. Such is the question facing big-time college sports, a question born of disparity: Football and men's basketball players generate billions in revenue for an intercollegiate athletic-industrial complex, yet receive a paltry cut of the profits via scholarships.

The debate whether college basketball and football players should be paid, however, is just beginning. A government official recently ruled that the football players at Northwestern University are employees of the university — not student-athletes, as the colleges and National Collegiate Athletic Association claim.

A debate on whether college athletes should be paid or not
Rated 4/5 based on 24 review