To Pay College Athletes or not to Pay

The question that has become a revolving door, should college athletes be paid? I find myself not having a strong stance for either side. So instead I want to look at both sides. Having played sports in high-school myself I can see both sides, and think each position is valid. Some might argue why college athletes shouldnt be paid, is easy. Common questions are asked. Would it jeopardize a college sports programr's status as a 501-c nonprofit organization? If college players can be paid, how much will they be paid? By paying said athletes will the sports programs face increasing scrutiny along with constraints? Athletic departments might pay a higher price if they shift from scholarships to salaries. When player compensation was in the form of a grant in aid, an athletics department could rely on the university financial aid to transfer a Pell Grant worth up to about $5,000 per year to a playerr's package if the student athlete had demonstrated financial need. So, if 100 grant-in-aid recipients were receiving Pell Grants, that might save the athletic department $500,000 per year in fulfilling their obligations on funding financial aid packages. Under the new rules, that potential subsidy would evaporate. Why is this important? If a college sports program department or athletics association forfeits its tax-exempt status, it may have new, big expenses from which it was spared under the student aid model. Those could include state and local categories of taxes, such as property taxes. There are already cases whereby a local government has pressed a major state university to explain why a golf course or other real estate not used for educational purposes that the institution owned should qualify as an educational and charitable site. With professional athletes on the payroll, such local and state scrutiny of land used for sports entertainment provided by hired professionals will increase. Since the NCAA is a non-profit, players cant be paid. By calling their players, student athletes and armatures Universities have found ways to control and limit the benefits of these players. By paying college athletes, would Pandorar's box be opened? Advocates for paying college players condone their cause and case on the grounds that since the NCAA, major conferences, big-time college sports programs and their high-profile coaches make millions of dollars from college sports, the amateur athletes who play the college games that attract spectators deserve to share in the riches. Some of the pros in my opinion include; providing relief to families, more incentives to play, encourages healthier student athletes, and it could lower tuition rates. With universities grossing close to $200 million a year college athletics has turned into one of the top industries in the world Families are often saddled with providing unequivocal support for their student athletes to abide by current payment rules. Student athletes are not even allowed to autograph items, or sell certain personal memorabilia, as a way to generate revenues. Outside of student loans for partial scholarship or walk-on athletes, it is up to each family to pay for the student to be at the school. Paying the athlete would provide some financial relief to these families, which may not have the funds to make long-term supports. The majority of student athletes who play in college never become professional athletes. Fewer than 2% of college athletes go on to become professional athletes, in the NCAA. Switching gears from playing sports to becoming professionals in their chosen field of study. By offering an allowance for playing, think of it like a work-study program. Gaining another incentive to become involved in athletics. Students could use these funds to pay for costs not usually covered by a scholarship. One thing that the funds could go toward is for a student to save the money, for a first apartment outside of college. If a student knows they will not go pro, they may decide to give up sports instead, which would ultimately reduce the income generated by collegiate sporting activities. Paying college athletes for their participation in a sport program does away with the need for the athlete to find outside employment to support themselves. Many scholarships may offer tuition, room, and board coverage in return for participating in a sport, but not every student athlete qualifies for a scholarship. Players who walk-on have their images used to generate revenues for the NCAA too for zero reparation. If these athletes are paid for their performance, it would allow them to focus on academics and athletics without worrying about making ends meet. Letr's be honest, most of our is rooted from finances. Paying student athletes does not mean that the costs for everyone would automatically go up. For some institutions, the costs could actually go down. Increased competition for the best athletes would create improved programming at colleges across the country. Athletic facilities would be upgraded to encourage enrollment. Although the richest institutions would always be able to offer more, at the end of the day, most people would benefit from lower costs because the system would require more efficiencies to remain productive.

Cite this page