From its start in 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was created to “protect young people from the dangerous and exploitive athletic practices of the time” according to the NCAA website.
It was established under President Roosevelt term to provide rules and funding that were in the student athletes’ best interests. B’ the mid 1 sass, many students were being paid to play for an institution because they couldn’t afford the cost of college. Because of the complication that this created, scholarships were established.At that time, several college: ere unwilling to pay the extra funding because it took away from the amateurism. Since that time, the NCAA has undergone several rule changes and expansions to better protect and educate its athletes. However, one major proposed rule change that has been simmering just beneath the surface since basically the start of the program until recent years is whether or not these athletes should be paid. This amendment is dogmatically supported by some and vehemently proposed by others. To begin with, college athletes should get paid because scholarships are not enough.
Scholarships do not cover all expenses. The student-athletes do not have time to work to pay off their growing debt (Griffin 18). Since scholarships do not cover everything, athletes should get paid so they do not graduate with large debt. The large debt would accumulate from everyday expenses over the athletes four years of college. The pay would be similar to what they would get if they were working a job because they spend the majority of thee time with their sport Meaning, they would get paid as if the sport is a job.Athletes have absolutely no time to get a job so why not pay them for what they are doing to represent their school? “In 1948 the NCAA adopted a ‘Saint Code’ that limited financial aid for athletes to tuition and fees and required that aid otherwise be given based on need” (U. S.
Sports Academy 2013). Furthermore, most athletes do not receive full rides or receive student loans Schools are only allowed handing out a certain number of scholarships per sport so they are more than likely going to split them up so they can give them to more athletes.Since the majority of athletes are not on a full ride or do not even have a scholarship they should get some type of aid from the school. These athletes should get paid as if it is their job since they devote he same amount of time towards it as they would a job. Scholarships do not cover all expenses for every athlete. In addition, paying college athletes would benefit the school as well as the athlete. Paying them would decrease the illegal payments that athletes receive to go to certain colleges, which occur very often.
This would greatly benefit the college because they would not be suspended from many things or seen as bad colleges. For example, if college were to pay a football player, the college could get suspended from BCC above games, which will cause the college to lose money they would have gotten of articulating in the bowl game. A way it would benefit the athlete is keeping the athlete in school.
If college athletes were to get paid to play more athlete would remain in school, instead of dropping out for hopes of going professional (Griffin 17).If the athletes were to stay in school they would complete their degree and have a better outlook on life. A college degree is essential to get a good job, which would result in a higher salary and possibly a better life Opposing views Of paying college athletes believe that the athletes are getting enough money from the scholarships. They say that athletes already receive money from athletic scholarships so that should be enough. Over a four-year period, scholarships can pay out more than two hundred thousand dollars (Sturdily 1).The athletes who receive full scholarships can get a free college degree that could be worth up to the same amount depending on the school you attend.
“Only five percent agreed that college sports are strictly a business and athletes should focus on training; 95 percent believe athletes should attend class and focus on their studies” (More 2013). However, plenty of the student athletes do not receive a full did scholarship and the athletes who walk on get nothing. Only one out of every three athletes receives a scholarship but these are not full scholarships and only pay for part of the expenses.
Additionally, people that oppose this argument believe that colleges should not pay college athletes because they have the opportunity to go professional and get paid hundreds of thousand dollars and sometimes over a million in playing their sport. They say that once the athletes graduate college they need to be eligible for the pros that there are going to leave college for the chance to become a professional. This loud result in a waste of money since the athletes are going to be making considerable amounts Of money that would easily pay off their debt from attending college.However, only about one percent of all college athletes end up making it to the pros. That leaves ninety-nine percent of the other athletes who would need the pay that would benefit them in regards to paying off large amounts of debt. In conclusion, college athletes should get paid for the time that they put into their respective sports.
The time that they dedicate to there sport is equivalent to the time someone has to put into a job, if not more. Only one third of college athletes receive a scholarship, the majority of those are partial, and only one percent of all college athletes make it to the pros.