There are many, including the players themselves, who feel that individuals who participate in the college realm and do not move on to the bigger picture deserve some level of pay for what some call “talents that are squandered.”
So is it the NCAA fault that the athletes did not make it o the next level which is professional?
They are adamant that these “slaves” to the university to which they represent should be compensated for their countless service.
Athletes do not have to continue playing sports for the program they decide to.
Though many arguments are in favor of paying college athletes for the intense effort they exhibit on the playing field, the underlying factor is that it is not financially sound for athletic organizations to dedicate large amounts of money that they do not necessarily have to the students who are already receiving hefty scholarships.
Athletes already receive lots of money in scholarships so now they should be paid?
Maybe college athletes should get paid, but they should get paid through eating and living, not in cold hard cash.
college athletes should not have to worry about food or their living arrangement but they should still not be paid.
This is why I think it is ridiculous that college athletes think they deserve to be compensated for their competition.
College athletes usually get scholarships to attend school so why should they be paid when their are student that pay their own tuition.
Degrees are more valuable depending on where one goes to school but nonetheless a college degree is valuable no matter where it comes from.
even if the athletes do not get paid they are still getting compensated by receiving higher education because today to actually have a decent job you need to have a college degree of some sort.
Although it may not seem right that athletes don’t get paid for all their hard work, many argue that college is a stepping-stone towards a professional athletic career and that athletes can wait a few years to get paid millions by professional franchises.
They do put in a lot of hard work but at the end of the day they are still student athletes and a student first they did not attend school to get paid.
Those who argue for paying student-athletes believe schools use their athlete’s images and performance to make money and the athletes should be compensated.
By the NCAA using athletes names to make money in return the athlete os becoming known because of the NCAA for merchandising their names and jerseys.
The education and services collegiate athletes receive for their participation is enough compensation and will be valuable after they’re done competing athletically.
Athletes usually get to attend school for free so why should they get paid?
In the highest-revenue sports—football and basketball—the argument in favor of paying players is so searingly obvious as to seem undeniable.
so just because they are the highest revenue sports no one else should be paid either it would be unfair no one should be paid at all on the college level.
Some of the players who might at least have been exposed to college would forgo it entirely.
Some athletes actually want to work hard towards something and this would make them feel as though they are not so some may forgo college
If a high-school football prodigy reported that he chose Michigan not for its academic quality, tradition, or beautiful campus but because it outbid all other suitors, a connection to the university’s values would be lost.
So now are colleges going to go in bidding wars with other colleges for certain players?
It fails, first of all, to recognize the value of sports as a part of education.
It fails to recognize a student being a student athlete but a student first. If they where to get paid to play it would defeat the purpose of being a student athlete.
The question of pay arises primarily in reference to student-athletes in the sports of football and basketball at Division I institutions with high-profile, high-income athletics programs.
so should only football and basketball players be paid?
A fundamental NCAA commitment under the collegiate model is to student-athlete well-being, where institutions have the responsibility to establish and maintain an environment in which student-athletes' activities are conducted to encourage academic success and individual development as an integral part of the educational experience.
So it is the university job to have activities like sports for student athletes so they can be encouraged academic success and growth.
Student-athletes are amateurs who choose to participate in intercollegiate athletics as a part of their educational experience, thus maintaining a distinction between student-athletes who participate in the collegiate model and professional athletes who are also students.
Athletes volunteered to play sports under the collegiate level they are not forced to.
Students are not professional athletes who are paid salaries and incentives for a career in sports.
Because they are still students in school and are not professional yet they should not get paid.
The same goes for Division II and Division III sports. Why shouldn’t those athletes be paid the same if they put in the same amount of time to practice, travel, and play games?
so should division 2 or 3 athletes not get paid at all? or should they not get paid equally for the same training time and effort put in.
However it is not a place for athletes to get paid to play sports, that’s why the professional level exists.
thats why there is a difference between playing collegiate and professional sports.
People need to drop the act that athletes are props and labor away for multi-billion dollar businesses. Television helps these kids market themselves.
people act as though players work for the NCAA. The NCAA actually markets the players and make names for them.
If players are that good and feel they deserve to be paid, they can make it to the professionals.
so if players feel they are really good and they deserve to be paid then the college dont have to pay them they can make it professionally.
If the football team gets paid, why not the tennis team or the volleyball team? They're athletes too, right? What about the golf players? They're all there on athletic scholarship. How about the chess team, as well? And who could forget about the rowing team? And female athletes?
which athletes get paid? and do they all receive equal pay?
If college football (legally) paid their athletes it wouldn't last. The recruiting process would be no more. It would result in one dominant conference for each sport and about two handfuls of dominant teams. The smaller schools in smaller markets would not be able to compete with the big universities resulting in loss of programs for many schools.
there would not be anymore recruiting it would be the best players playing for the programs offering the most income. and this would result in lower level universities possibly losing their programs.
As athletes, they are not held to the same standard as other students. The biggest universities give the athletes the best gyms to workout in, free health insurance for injuries, transportation, food, equipment and most importantly free tuition.
So are athletes not actually being compensated for attending a university by being on full scholarships that covers everything?
Is this what we want elementary and middle school students to see? As soon as they see this they will be demanding pay at the high-school level. The message College Sports would be sending is "it's ok to hold out for more money and it's ok to only pay some athletes but not others." Every kid will grow up wanting to join the football team just regardless of talent.
This will send a bad message to younger children, they will only want to become a college athlete to make money regardless of talent or the actual school work. And children will also think it is ok to receive unfair payments such as one athlete in a sport making more money than another in a different sport.
Schools are under more financial pressure than ever before, thanks in part to the new school lunch nutrition standards that hit the ground last year
So basically they are saying because schools lunch focus on nutrition they are under more financial pressure than before.
“Moreover, it would allow farmers to make a decent living while giving consumers access to healthy, fresh food at affordable prices.”
Local foods are more fresh and they are more affordable so more people will buy it because of that benefiting the farmers or people who are selling it