Should College Athletes Get Paid?

The question of whether or non college supporters should aim p maintenance is of heated debate in todays quantify. While many believe that student athletes are entitle to in convey, It remains undougtibly a concern of moral interest to universities across the country. This paper is going to explain the pros and cons that come with allo deliver the goodsg student athletes the right to receive a salary. Should college athletes be paid? allows take a quick glance at the pros and cons of each perspective. For starters, in my opinion, yes, college athletes should depart paid. What deserves debate, is the conversation of how to becharm this done.From my experience, in America, you get paid in proportion to the value you bring to the marketplace. College diverts is one, if non the wholly, place where this isnt the case. its only a matter of time before players start getting much than a free education. in that location are pile of cons that come with paid students to play sport s. According to cognomen IX, a nationally-mandated law, if conferences and schools decide to growing the value of student-athlete scholarships to cover living expenses, they have to do it for womens programs as well.This means that schools would have to, for example, maturation the value of womens volleyball and softball scholarships as well. Schools have to confront in-accordance with Title IX, otherwise theyre risking their federal funding. And you know theyre not try to lose out on any bullion. Another statement as to why schools should not allow student athletes to get paid is the circumstance that small schools would be at a disadvantage. How would the smaller schools and conferences afford this? The bigger conferences own way to a greater extent money than the smaller conferences through their huge tv deals.So unless the Big Tens, and SECs of the world bear to give revenue to conferences that make afraction of what they make, (think MAC and Mountain West conferenc es), wouldnt this create an even wider gap recruiting-wise mingled with the powerhouse conferences and the smaller conferences? ask yourself if you were to choose amongst playing football for a small school, and a big school thats legally giving you $5,000 in living expenses, which would you choose? Most college gymnastic programs are already losing money, so how could they afford to all male and female athletic programs, to cover for the athletes living expenses?Another concern to paying student athletes is the question of whether to pay athletes of all sports? Lets be real here mens football and basketball teams are ordinarily the programs that make the most money for universities, so if football players and basketball players got paid, does that mean that the mens lacrosse and baseball game players would get paid too? Most schools would not have the findings to financially pay athletes of the fur major sports in the united states. Finally players are still going to take und er the table money.In my opinion, increase scholarship amounts to cover living expenses whitethorn keep any(prenominal) of the kids from judge money, just its not going to keep them all from doing it. I dont think kids getting an extra $5,000 or so from their Universities wouldnt keep the agents, boosters, etc. , from offering them cash and benefits. But I must admit, its definitely a step that I believe would at least keep some of the kids from accepting benefits those that only take the money because of their circumstances or lack of cash for living expenses.There are plenty of beliefs, which justify paying student athletes. Jim Tressel gets paid close to $1 million a year for trying to win as many football games as possible. His players, however, establish no salary for doing the a equivalent(p) thing. Although college athletes do get rewarded with scholarship money, there is a debate around the country as to whether that amount is bounteous compensation for all the work re quired of student athletes each year. Several Ohio State civilizees were recently asked if they thought college athletes should be paid a salary, and their responses varied. I believe there is a big difference between paper money and real money, and the scholarships these kids get are only paper money, tell basketball coach Jim OBrien. They need to have some real money to walk around with that they cease blend off of. Student athletes are not allowed to work much under NCAA regulations, and those who are in kick upstairs of paying them often point to that rule as a precedent college athletes need money. But that reason isnt enough for all coaches to share OBriens views toward paying student athletes.Wrestling coach Russ Hellickson answered the same question Should student athletes be paid? He came up with a very different response. No, moreover they should be able to get what, say, a Presidential Scholar gets, he said in an e-mail. This should be an educational experience. Presidential Scholars receive full in-state tuition, room and board, book allowances and miscellaneous expenses a total that OSU media traffic estimates to be $12,483 per year for in-state students. That is nearly $2,000 more than an in-state athlete receives, even if they are awarded a full scholarship.Most of that $2,000 move under the category of miscellaneous expenses, something athletes do not receive money for. The extra scholarship money is to be used for athletic tickets, book costs, bus passes anything that students need for living, said Amy Murray, OSU spokeswoman. Some coaches are in favor of keeping things exactly as they are, without raising scholarship levels. Softball coach Linda Kalafatis said she did not feel well versed enough in the takings to know an answer to the question for sure, unblemishedly she weighed in with her opinion on whether or not college athletes should get more for what they do.Softball coach Linda Kalafatis said she did not feel well vers ed enough in the topic to know an answer to the question for sure, nevertheless she weighed in with her opinion on whether or not college athletes should get more for what they do. There are some keen arguments out there for it, but I am against it, she said. The fact that our kids get scholarship opportunities and good exposure makes the experience good. One of the issues that may be a problem with paying college athletes is the difference in revenue that each sport brings in through television contracts and other sources.At OSU, football and basketball both bring in a large amount of money for the university every year, so some may argue that they deserve a percentage of that. But do football and basketball players deserve more than athletes who participate in non-revenue sports? Some coaches chose not to comment on the issue because it is a delicate subject. Those who did respond felt strongly towards pairity. If money is given, all tendered athletes should be the same, Hellic kson said. This isnt and shouldnt be the pros. We have more class. Athletics Director Andy Geiger agreed, saying if a compensation externalize ever went into effect, it would have to be equal for everybody. Thats the only way it works, he said. It would not work, for instance, if only football and basketball players were paid. Title IX calls for scholarship equality in college mutant, so if pay ever was given to student athletes, all sports would believably receive the same amount. The plan that is the most belike to take place in the next hardly a(prenominal) years is the one Geiger mentioned during his recent interview.I wouldnt mind seeing a liberalization of the financial aid rules to allow athletic grants and aid to move closer to the cost of education, he said. As far as players actually getting salaries no. Staying away from salaries for college athletes was the consensus of all coaches who chose to comment on the issue. Im not in favor of salaries, but some sort of s tipend would be beneficial, OBrien said. When asked how much of a stipend he would like to see, OBrien said that was something he did not know the answer to yet.He said it would have to be discussed at great length before he reached a decision. Another topic that is worth considering when deciding whether or not to pay student athletes is the fact that not all university sports programs earn as much as OSUs. Equality is the key factor in this issue as well. Should a college with high-revenue programs, like OSU, be able to pay more than smaller Division I colleges? Under Title IX, the answer has to be no. Since athletic budgets around the country arent all in as good shape as ours, I dont really know how realistic a plan this is, Kalafatis said.OBrien said he agreed. When you start talking about every sport at every college across the country, thats a curing of money. Every sport would need to receive the same amount, so right now this is not too realistic of an option. Hellickson thinks differently about the realism of the plan. Unfortunately, it will in all likelihood be driven through in the next five years by those who believe athletics is more important than education, With the popularity of sports nowadays, leagues are making more money than ever before.The universities are raking in the sugar from these humongous television contracts, and the coaches and everybody else are seeing their fair share. he said. Everybody waits in line for their piece of the pie, yet, the ones who make the system work are the ones who dont even get to taste the crumbs that have fallen onto the table. In fact, plot of ground everyone is going up for seconds, the athletes dont even get invited to the dinner table. I think we can all agree that collegiate sports is no longer an amateur enterprise, and I am not going to argue that fact with you.We can save that for a different time and different day of the week. Like everything in life, paying collegiate athletes has its pro s and cons, but it would certainly save the sport of college basketball if some type of payment plan was installed. College basketball is by far a smaller market than college football is. I would say that more than half of the people that fill out the March Madness brackets dont even pay attention to the lenify until the month of February rolls around. And there are certainly reasons for that.One is that the sport has to compete with college football and the NFL until late January, and another is that the sport is slowly but surely suffering a slow death. I cant tell you how many times I have watched the Fab Five documentary on ESPN. I have watched it more than Seinfeld reruns, not because of everything they did for the game or because it was a great piece to keep you occupied when you have two hours to kill, but because I am wondering when or if we will ever see a team like that again.That squad was put together during the 1991 season, and all five of those players played at least two seasons. quadruple of the five stayed till their junior years, while two of the Fab Five played out their entire years of eligibility in a Michigan uniform. Nowadays, teams do land several of the most talented players in the country, but they end up leaving after one season. Even if the player is still novel at the position, needs to pass on on weight or could use another year to tinge his game, he is still off to the next level the second he hears he is first-round material and is guaranteed an NBA contract.Having players stay for more than one year would service of process create greater teams, as those programs would be able to add to the current talent rather than just replacing it. When you think of the greatest teams in college basketball, you think of teams that were likely formed before you were even born. Thats because the NBA wasnt handing out ridiculously large sums of money to these athletes and making it such an palmy choice to leave college. It would also he lp even out the recruiting process, giving some of these other teams a better shot at competing for a national championship.The players that are going to be one-and-done only fate to play for the best of the best schools, so they choose Duke, Kentucky, Syracuse and North Carolina because it gives them the best chance to win a title in the one season they are on campus. Well, if players were being paid, it would certainly help create a little more of an even playing field. If that player was going to stay in school a little bit longer, why wouldnt he think about staying close to post or joining a school with a little less talent where he can become the star rather than joining a team already stacked with 5-star recruits?Wouldnt college basketball be a lot more interesting if it had many of the same players every year rather than having to get to know an entire roster every season? You thought Kentucky was good last season? depend if Brandon Knight and DeAndre Liggins had decided t o stay for another season and had been a part of that championship roster. There is a reason that teams such as Harvard, Wichita State and Murray State are making noise lately, and it has a lot to do with experience on the roster.