Should NCAA Athletes Be Paid?
I've wrote about this issue in some of my comments of other blogs, but I've never actually had an article that dealt with this main question. It's easily one of the most debated topics in college sports and there are pros and cons to each side of the argument. This article talks specifically about college basketball and March Madness and the Final Four. Athletic conferences receive millions of dollars from the NCAA if their teams advance deep into the tournament, and the NCAA, as a whole, makes $6 billion annually just from basketball. That's a ridiculous amount of money to be earning especially since they don't have to pay any of the people that are earning them that money. I'd like to know what the NCAA actually does with all of their earnings.
I'm kind of in the middle of this argument. I do not think college players should get paid to play, but I do think they should be able to earn money from autographs or jersey sales and stuff like that. It's only fair that way. The NCAA is making money by selling things with your name on it, so you should get some of the profit. It isn't a good idea to just outright pay college athletes just to play though because most of them will most likely make dumb decisions and use it on stupid things like alcohol because there isn't much they need money for in college especially if they have a scholarship.
Even though this will continue to be highly debated, I don't think that anyone will ever come up with a strong enough case for the NCAA to decide to pay their athletes. They're doing completely fine now with how it is structured and they're making a good profit so I don't see any need for them to change it any time soon. The marginal costs of paying college athletes would just far outweigh the marginal benefits for the NCAA.
Answer: NO!
ReplyDeleteNCAA athletes are not employees, so they cannot get paid for playing sports.
The real question is "Should NCAA players be allowed to make money from autographs?" I say they should be able to do that. The schools would not be paying them, so the NCAA is not losing money. The players can get some spending money the NCAA would not give them, so the players would benefit.
I agree with Kevin. There is no reason for athletes to get paid. These kids get a free education. All of the money the saved because of college is like getting paid. Now getting money off of your autograph is different. That should be allowed. The NCAA should not have the right to suspend someone for signing a piece of paper and getting a little extra cash.
ReplyDeleteI think that pay could be somewhat grade based. Many athletes lack in education to make up in sports. If pay was grade based then they would be forced to focus on what really matters.
ReplyDeleteAs I said in a previous comment, college athletes are receiving more than they are giving so they should absolutely not be paid. They are there to receive an education and everything else should be secondary.
ReplyDeleteCollege athletes shouldn't get paid. They are going to school for fraction of the price that other would wish to have.
ReplyDeleteWow kev money that is a very good point. They should be able to sell there autographs it is their signature so they should be able to do with it as they please. But idk this is such a hard topic to debate about. There is so many different view points for it.
ReplyDelete