Analysis: Should College Athletes Be Paid

1101 Words5 Pages
Every year right around the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) biggest basketball tournament, “March Madness” and throughout the college football season, fans seem to raise the similar controversial question. Should college athletes be paid? College athletics is separated into three separate divisions, Division One, Division Two, and Division Three. Division One is the largest division in the NCAA and offers athletic scholarships to their recruits and players. Division Two is a size smaller than D1 and offers scholarships as well, but not as often or as much in quantity as D1. Division Three is the smallest division and is not allowed to offer any form of scholarship money. Athletes are also students and must pay college expenses…show more content…
They believe that by not paying them it maintains an amateur status, explained by John Brill in his article, “Should College Athletes Be Paid?” These athletes are not only athletes, but they attend college to be students too, stressed by Kieran McCauley who believes they should not be paid. Not every all college athletes will go professional and make a living from the sport so they should be more focused on being a student. Students who attend a Division One or Two college may be given a scholarship that covers their education and room and board. In this case, generally these athletes are receiving a “free education” and should not need to be paid. If student athletes were to be paid, how would it be justified that one athlete that plays every second of the game gets paid the same as a player who may be injured and on the bench for the whole season? People disagree with athletes having an income from their college because they cannot fairly pay each athlete. There would also be a difference in what men and women would get paid within the NCAA due to popularity, which could lead to a dispute on sexism. It is a firm belief of these people that if the athletes are truly that good where they should be making money for it, then eventually one day they will be playing the sport professionally while making a lot of…show more content…
Without players to make games worth watching on TV or in the stands, how would the NCAA make money? It is simple, they would not. All the more reason to pay the teams of athletes that draw the attention and bring in the money. During March Madness, the NCAA makes over 770 million dollars in TV deals, according to John Brill. Brill is also a firm believer that college athletes should be paid. March Madness would not bring in so much money if the teams were not performing well during the season and making names for themselves. In a way, the athletes are walking advertisements and sponsors for the NCAA. Any college athlete must play at least one year in the NCAA before entering into a professional league. This benefits the NCAA because every time one of these athletes makes a headline they make money off of it. The chances are that if a student is going to go pro they will make headlines throughout the season, making more money for the league. According to the NCAA, fifty-three percent of Division One athletes got to school on scholarship, and fifty-six percent in Division Two. About half of these athletes are going to college and still paying full tuition and room and board. But, even with scholarships covering that, John Brills determined through research that athletes still pay between eight thousand and twelve thousand dollars on travel and other necessities. The scholarship
Open Document