Should College Athletes Be Paid Free Essays

Samuel Wingert Professor Grimm ENG100G Midterm Research Paper 18 October 2012 Collegiate Level â€Å"Pay to play? That’s the question being fiercely debated on campuses and across the college conferences. And it’s shocking to see the level of support the answer â€Å"yes† is getting—because the idea tears at the very nature of amateur college sports† (Should). There are views from both sides as this is quite the controversial subject in the sporting world. We will write a custom essay sample on Should College Athletes Be Paid or any similar topic only for you Order Now Looking at the facts, it is difficult to decide either way. First off, we must decide what qualifies under the pay to play category. There are numerous ways that college athletes can be compensated for their time dedicated to the sport. They consist of scholarships, free tuition, fees, and room and board. â€Å"Athletes on scholarship currently receive tuition, fees, room, board, and books—costs that can exceed $30,000 to $50,000 a year at many schools. Last October, the NCAA agreed to let college conferences decide whether to pay student athletes an additional $2,000 annual stipend to more closely match the total cost of attendance† (Should). Some of the student athletes that attend college come from poor environments. The athlete and their family cannot offer the money to get them through the hard times of making college payments. â€Å"Collegiate athletes deserve to be paid. The scholarships that they receive cover school-related expenses. They cover books, tuition, and room and board. These scholarships allow athletes to attend class, eat, and sleep on campus for free. What they don’t do is give the players money. Many NCAA athletes come from disadvantaged backgrounds, where their families can’t afford to give them money. † (Solution). Also, is it right to compensate college athletes for their hard work? What if people in the business of money took $1. 3 billion off the top, invested it, sheltered it and made it available to provide a stipend to college athletes, how could anybody stand on principal and argue against paying the people who make the events possible in the first place? † (Michael). After all, they are part of the reason for the revenue that the organizati on receives. â€Å"Those who advocate payment argue that because colleges make lots of money through their football and basketball programs, student athletes are being exploited if they don’t get a piece of the revenue pie. Recently more than 300 athletes petitioned the NCAA and college presidents for a cut of the estimated $775 million generated by televising college sports† (Should). For the amount of work that athletes put in, whether it is on the field or off, they deserve much more than just tuition and room and board. This could raise another question. What will it do to the recruiting process? Will it make the universities more vulnerable to negotiations? â€Å"As the have-nots compete with the haves, coaches would feel even more pressure to win, and recruiting violations would only increase. Speaking of coaches, the University of South Carolina’s Steve Spurrier believes that each of his 70 football players should receive $300 per game. He says that he and several other Southeast Conference coaches feel so strongly about it that they’re willing to pay it themselves† (Should). Paying players may result in the decrease of interest in division two, three, and private universities. The institutions with a larger budget can attract the better athletic recruits. Looking at the pros and cons of paying college athletes, we could lean either way. According to Title IX, a federally mandated law, if conferences and schools decide to increase the value of student-athlete scholarships to cover living expenses, they have to do it for women’s programs as well. This means that schools would have to, for example, increase the value of women’s volleyball and softball scholarships as well. Schools have to stay in-accordance with Title IX, otherwise theyâ₠¬â„¢re risking their federal funding† (Pros and Cons). It can become very sticky when you have to incorporate federal laws into the equation. Another thing that can raise the eyebrow when dissecting the cons of paying players is what sporting teams are getting paid. To be fair to the whole university, you would think that they should pay all varsity sports teams. â€Å"Let’s be real here; men’s football and basketball teams are usually the programs that make the most money for universities, so if football players and basketball players got paid, does that mean that the men’s lacrosse and baseball players would get paid too? † (Pros and Cons). What happens when college athletes decide to make themselves eligible for the professional league before they graduate? This could cause a wrinkle in the system if you create a contract. Will it be able to broken or does the athlete have to stay all four years? The big factor that all athletes fear is the risk of injury. Some feel that players should have some sort of compensation while injured. Is it worth the college spending money on an athlete who may not play up to his ability since becoming hurt? A Nebraska state senator who is a longtime supporter of providing stipends to college athletes submitted a bill in 2003 to allow players of Nebraska’s football team to be paid. He stated that they are unpaid workers who just aren’t amateurs. They call it a scholarship but he wanted to see the athletes to have some spendable money. An Oklahoma university football player said that he plays for one of the top football schools in the country and is struggling to get groceries every month. (USA). Even players agree that it is tough to juggle life with their sports. They feel that for the effort that they put in, an award of some sort should be sent their way. Any kind of non-revenue sport would have to be cut because there would not be sufficient funds to pay their players. This could cause the amount of athletes enrolling in the college to decrease, mainly because of the less diversity that the school provides. â€Å"The NCAA historically has been against pay for play. I couldn’t agree more with that position. If you start paying student-athletes (other than assisting them through financial aid), you essentially ruin the integrity of the college game. † (USA) If we incorporate too much money, the players may become greedy and ask for more and more money. College sports may even become a democracy. The best thing about college sports is the passion. You’re playing for the love of the game, not because you’re getting paid. If money started getting involved, I worry that college sports could be corrupted. I like things the way they are now. † (USA). What happens to those students that aren’t athletes? It would seem as though they would want something as well. Do they deserve to be paid to play in the collegeâ€℠¢s band or as part of the art club? After all, they are all going to college for the same reason; to further their education. Paying a player will create a jealousy factor among students who are not athletes and then you have to figure in what athletes get paid because it would be difficult to pay every athlete because most schools have a multitude of different sports. Then do you pay the upperclassmen only? † (College). An example of this issue happened a few years ago at Mississippi State University. It was plastered all over ESPN and Sportscenter for weeks. It dealt with their football team and ultimately the quarterback Cam Newton. It was believed that he accepted a sum of money from the university to transfer from Florida University. They did this in hopes of improving their team with Newton’s experience and leadership skills. Cam Newton turned down the money and signed with Auburn. â€Å"On Dec. 31, 2009, Newton publicly committed to Auburn, where this season he has led the Tigers to a 9-0 record and No. 2 ranking in the BCS standings. Along the way, Newton’s dazzling running and passing have elevated him to Heisman Trophy favorite status. † (Cash). Not only did Newton lead his team to the national championship, he was elected as the first pick in the NFL draft. He plays for the Carolina Panthers and was a candidate for Rookie of the Year. All of this would not have been possible if he chose the large sum of money. â€Å"If educational institutions pay their players, the gap between major division one schools, whose athletic programs can afford the large salaries and tremendous benefits that the very best athletes demand, and mid-major teams who simply cannot compete in that arena will only widen. It is not a huge leap to imagine that Stanford  would be able to pay exorbitant amounts of money to get the best athletes to play, while its competitors could not possibly match Stanford’s financial advantage in recruitment. Many of the small school would become overpowered and almost non-existent. (Should College). College presidents and fans have fears of pay for play as well. In a pole to college sports fans, most of them fear that with payment come endorsements. This could be similar to the scholarship money because it motivates the student athlete to compete to their best in the sporting world. This brings up t he question of whether the players will focus enough on their books and schoolwork or just sports. â€Å"A few years ago, Nike could sell a Duke number four jersey for $80 and J. J. Redick didn’t see one dime. That was and is unfair. The NCAA should come down firmly against student pay but firmly on the side of students who have become profitable marketing tools for corporations to gain their fair share of the spoils. † (Should College). The NCAA’s purpose is â€Å"To govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable, and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student athlete is paramount. † These boil down to colleges’ jobs are to protect their student athletes, make sure they have the best college experience, and keep the playing field level. Solution). College athletes work hard in the classroom and on their respective field. They should not have the distraction of pay to play hanging over their head. â€Å"Basically the student-athletes are allowed to use what the school gives them, and nothing else. These people are expected sacrifice their bodies for their schools for any where between 1-4 years, and they are only allowed to use what their institution gives them to get by. † (Solution). Pay for play will always be a controversial subject and it is up to the NCAA, colleges, and university to sort over. Student athletes should be able to excel regardless of the paycheck. Works Cited â€Å"Cash Sought for CamA  Newton. † ESPN. com. N. p. , n. d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. http://sports. espn. go. com/ncf/news/story? id=5765214. â€Å"College Football. † Bleacher Report. N. p. , n. d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. http://bleacherreport. com/articles/405726-paid-for-plays-shoud-college-athletes-get-paid. |, Michael Wilbon. â€Å"College Athletes Deserve to Be  paid. † ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, n. d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. http://espn. go. om/college-sports/story/_/id/6778847/college-athletes-deserve-paid. â€Å"Should College Athletes Be Paid? Pros and Cons of Each Perspective Part 1. † Get2TheLeague. com. N. p. , n. d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. http://www. get2theleague. com/should-college-athletes-be-paid-pros-and-cons-of-each-perspective/. â€Å"Should College Athletes Be Paid to Play? One Fan Weighs In. † PARADE. com. N. p. , n. d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. http://www. parade . com/news/all-america/2012/should-college-athletes-be-paid-to-play. html. â€Å"Should College Athletes Get Paid? † Should College Athletes Get How to cite Should College Athletes Be Paid, Essay examples Should College Athletes Be Paid Free Essays Keyon Billie Ms. Gavin Speech Class 3/25/2013 Over the past few years college athletics have gained immense popularity across the United States. Whether it be football, basketball, or hockey, ever since the turn of the century, intercollegiate sports have brought in a surplus of revenue to their respective Universities, as well as increasing the popularity of the College’s reputation. We will write a custom essay sample on Should College Athletes Be Paid? or any similar topic only for you Order Now For example, in a study conducted by the Orland Sentientnel, it was estimated that the University of Texas’ Athletic Program had the highest revenue of any other University at $120,288,370 (How Much Revenue). Yet with this large sum of money, no college athletes are legally compensated for their work. According to NCAA rules, â€Å"You are not eligible for participation in a sport if you have ever: Taken pay, or the promise of pay, for competing in that sport† (NCAA Regulations 1). Due to this law, not only are college athletes having difficulty in paying off their college tuition, but also many athletes are being paid under the table through black markets. These amateur athletes have no incentive to stay in college and finish their respective degrees, as many cannot afford to pay for the increasingly expensive college experience. While many argue that college athletes shouldn’t be paid as they are just amateurs representing their schools, I argue that athletes must be paid to save the legitimacy of college athletics. Student athletes should be compensated for their work, as they are the sole reason for the Athletic Program’s surplus in revenue. These athletes are working hard and bringing in money to the University every day, yet aren’t rewarded with any monetary value. These athletes are working for the schools and are doing a service to the college that seems to go unnoticed. This lack of pay is not seen anywhere else in the work place and shouldn’t be seen here. Some even argue, â€Å"College athletes are being exploited by their schools, which make millions of dollars off of intercollegiate athletics† (Should Student-Athletes Get Paid? ). Colleges are using these athletes to boost their respective reputations and bring in revenue while not compensating these athletes for their work. Everywhere else athletes are paid, so why shouldn’t college students too? Some critics may argue that these student-athletes are amateurs, and if paid then are becoming professional athletes. This statement can be easily disproved, however, as amateur is a very broad and controversial term. Hockey players a part of the AHL (Amateur Hockey League) are considered to be amateurs but are compensated for their work. Defining College athletes as amateurs creates another problem in addition to not being paid by the University: athletes can’t promote themselves. The NCAA states â€Å"student-athletes shall be amateurs†¦and should be protected from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprise. However, with this statement it seems that colleges and universities â€Å"are the entity that exploits† them. In 2000, due to the increasing cost of education, the NCAA â€Å"approved student-athletes’ employment in jobs paying up to $2,000 during a school year; the income can address educational expenses†. However, not only does $2,000 barley cover educational costs, especially if not on scholarship, but the NCAA is not allowing student athletes to promote themselves. Also, with all the time practicing and working in the classroom, how many athletes have time to actually get a job? In reality, they are already working by performing on the court, field, or rink. In a documentary conducted by ESPN entitled â€Å"Fab Five,† one of the college basketball players for the University of Michigan said, that It was hard to see his jersey in the stands and knowing that just his number was on it, not his name. He later goes on to say that he wasn’t receiving any money from it even though Addidas was promoting his jersey! This Michigan Basketball player then goes on to say that he couldn’t even afford the jersey that his fans were wearing. He wanted to buy a jersey for his mom, but couldn’t afford it. Another argument that supports paying college athletes, is that these â€Å"full-ride† scholarships given to the best athletes do not actually cover all their expenses. Many athletes still can’t afford to have their parents come to the stadium and watch the games. For example, in 2010, â€Å"Duke basketball players were valued at $1,025,656 while [the players were] living just $732 above the poverty line and a scholarship shortfall of $1,995† (â€Å"The Price of Poverty in Big Time College Sports†). With all of the respect and publicity of these athletes, it goes unnoticed that a great deal of the players live very near to the poverty line. Due to this lack of money, black-markets are created. Here, boosters that represent the University give these players’ cars, spending money, or anything they truly want, and in return, these players go to their respective University. There have been many instances of this injustice before, but one prominent example is that of Reggie Bush, the running back for the University of Southern California from 2003-2005. Bush was paid by boosters to attend USC, which violated NCAA rules. Bush was heavily criticized when the violations were revealed and had to return his Heisman trophy. While Bush’ actions were clearly wrong and him returning the Heisman trophy was warranted, its tough to give him much criticism. At the time, Bush didn’t come from much wealth and even with a â€Å"full-ride† football scholarship, he could not cover all of his expenses. Bush’s mother was having trouble paying rent, so a booster at USC offered to pay for his mother’s apartment in Pasadena. Bush felt obligated to take this offer, as there was no other way to make money and pay for his mother’s apartment. If Bush were paid for his participation in the NCAA, then Bush would have attended any University he would so please. These boosters’ actions are not only illegal, but create an imbalance in competition amongst the NCAA. These universities that violate NCAA rules have an upper edge in recruiting top prospects. Schools are then tempted to violate such rules to even out the playing field. The last and arguably the most important reason to pay college athletes, is that it will ensure that most college athletes will complete their college degrees. â€Å"Paying student-athletes would provide athletes an incentive to stay in school and complete their degree programs, instead of leaving early for the professional leagues†. If athletes are paid to play, not only can they cover some of their college expenses that scholarships couldn’t cover, but also now they will want to finish their education. NCAA prides itself on all student-athletes are students first and athletes second, however, it seems that more popular athletes leave early for the pros. In college basketball, many freshman stars are referred to as â€Å"one and done† players as they complete one year of college and go to the professional leagues early, as they want money and need it as soon as possible. The importance of their education is lost. The University seems to be hypocritical in its actions when it doesn’t pay its athletes, because it seems they support college athletes leaving for the Professional league early. According to the article, â€Å"A university’s primary objective is to provide its students with a quality education that prepares them to function in the world as opposed to in college. † However, without paying athletes, universities leave their students with no other option but to not graduate and withdrawal after a semester or a year to meet their financial obligations. Logistically, it should be very simple for the universities to compensate their student-athletes. One author suggests that every university pays the same flat rate to each college athlete for three years, then offer a raise to senior athletes. This bonus will create that incentive for students to receive their degrees. While it may seem odd and unjust to pay college athletes, the reality is that compensation of such athletes is a necessity not only to keep competition at a steady level in college athletics, but also to encourage students to graduate and get their college degrees. How to cite Should College Athletes Be Paid?, Essay examples Should College Athletes Be Paid Free Essays Should College Athletes Be Paid? Should college athletes be paid? This question has been the subject of debate for many years. There are pros and cons to both sides of the issue, but college athletes deserve to be paid for several reasons. One reason is that college athletes are not allowed to work and earn money when they are playing a sport. We will write a custom essay sample on Should College Athletes Be Paid? or any similar topic only for you Order Now Another is that college athletes can contribute to a winning team that attracts fans and raises ticket sales and can bring in money through sponsorships and merchandising. Paying college athletes will also prevent them from accepting bribes, such as money, cars and clothes. Another consideration is how are athletes going to afford all the necessary expenses for college, especially if they come from poor families. Some people say that athletes are being paid with an education, but what if an athlete has an injury that requires surgery? Athletes and their families will need money to pay medical bills, which will be expensive. Surgery is not cheap and they may not be able to pay the medical bill. Lastly, paying athletes may help them stay in school longer rather than turning professional where they could stand to make a lot of money. â€Å"Should College Athletes Be Paid? † New York Public Library. 2003. 21 Dec. 2009 . ) College athletes should be paid because they are not allowed to work and earn money. (â€Å"Slaves of Big Time College Sports. † USA Today. 2000. Eitzen, D Stanley. 21 Dec. 2009 . ) Without that money, many athletes may not be able to afford college or the associated expenses, such as food or rent if they live off campus. Thi s defeats a key goal of college, which is to make students self-sufficient and be able to take care of themselves without their parents or guardians. Another reason that college athletes should be paid is that they attract fans and sponsors but receive none of the profit. It has been estimated that a Division One school can earn as much as $750 million from ticket sales and merchandising in just one football season. (â€Å"Slaves of Big Time College Sports. † USA Today. 2000. Eitzen, D Stanley. 21 Dec. 2009 . ). That amount equals almost $11. 3 million per player! The school should take some of the profit, and the college athletes should receive the majority of it, which clearly does not happen. Instead none of the money goes to the athletes. In addition to ticket sales and merchandising, schools also receive sponsorships. Merchandise brings in less than $1 million annually to the University of Florida compared to the $69 million total revenue. Again, this number would be significantly less in a school that did not win back to back-to-back championships. Merchandise is low on the list of revenue behind boosters, sponsorships, ticket sales, etc. (â€Å"Should Student Athletes Like Tim Tebow Be Paid for Endorsements? † The Bleacher Report. 2009. Brown, Jeremy. 10 March 2010 http://www. thebleacherreport. com). The head of the Tennessee women’s basketball team receives $200,000 a year from sponsorships and radio and television shows, in addition to her $175,000 salary. The $200,000 she receives from sponsorships and radio and television goes directly to her: the athletes do not get a penny of it. (â€Å"Should College Athletes Be Paid? † Issues and Controversies. 1999. 18 Dec. 2009 . ) Paying college athletes would prevent them from accepting bribes. An opposing school could offer a key player on the team money to throw a game. That key player could be bribed into doing this. If athletes were paid, it would reduce the chances of this happening. Players may also be bribed with money or cars to go to a certain college. This would have the effect of making wealthier schools better at sports because they can afford to pay the players with bribes. Another reason for paying college athletes is to keep them in college. The truly good athletes may have the opportunity to turn professional in their junior year and make millions of dollars. If they are at least being paid some money in college, that could give them a reason to stay and complete their senior year and graduate. Some people say that college athletes are being paid with an education. An education is important and should be the priority, but the reality is many Division One athletes go to college to play sports with the hope of becoming professional. An education does not pay for food or clothes or an injury that may happen. Medical bills are expensive, and the athletes and their families might not be able to afford the necessary medical treatments. Furthermore, institutions’ athletic scholarships in reality are not usually good enough to support entire teams. â€Å"We examined such scholarships available at our institution, and it is clear that most scholarships aren’t ‘full rides. They fail to cover a lot of the expenses throughout the four years of college. In addition, there is no guarantee that an annual athletic scholarship will be renewed for every returning student athlete. † (â€Å"Should Student-Athletes Be Paid? † The Sport Digest. Martin M. 2008. 9 March 2010 http://www. thesportsdigest. com. ) Athletes should be paid to play for many reasons. College athletes are not allowed to work and to earn money for school and related expenses. They also attract fans and raise money from ticket sales, sponsorships and merchandising to benefit their schools but do not receive any of that money in return. Paying athletes may also prevent them from accepting bribes such as money, clothes and cars. Lastly, if athletes were paid, it could help encourage them to stay in school and waiting until graduating before they turn professional. Bibliography Brown, Jeremy â€Å"Should Student Athletes Like Tim Tebow Get Paid For Endorsements? † The Bleacher Report. 16 November 2009. Croton Harmon High School Library, Croton on Hudson, NY. 10 March 2010. http://www. thebleacherreport. com Eitzen, D Stanley â€Å"Slaves of Big Time College Sports† USA Today. September 26 2000. Sirs. Croton Harmon High School Library, Croton on Hudson, NY. 1 December 2009. http://sks. sirs. com M, Martin â€Å"Should Student Athletes Be Paid? † The Sports Digest. 21 April 2008. Croton Harmon High School Library, Croton on Hudson, NY. 9 March 2010. http://:www. thesportsdigest. com Shenk, David â€Å"Should College Athletes Be Paid? † New York Public Library. 27 July 2003. Croton Harmon High School Library, Croton on Hudson, NY. 21 December 2009. http://nypl. org â€Å"Should College Athletes Be Paid? † Issues and Controversies. 4 June 1999. Facts on File. Croton Harmon High School Library, Croton on Hudson, NY. 18 December 2009. http://www. 2facts. com How to cite Should College Athletes Be Paid?, Papers Should College Athletes Be Paid Free Essays College Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid While catching up on some game day scores for college football, an article popped up on the side with a title reading, College Athletes Deserve To Be Paid. I noticed it was written by Michael Wilbon, one of the hosts from the ESPN show, Pardon the Interruption. Already disagreeing with the title before even reading it, I was skeptical, but I clicked on the link and started to read. We will write a custom essay sample on Should College Athletes Be Paid or any similar topic only for you Order Now Wilbon brought up a number of decent points throughout the article, but for some odd reason, they didn’t seem to add up to me. This is why I took the opportunity to do a little more research behind the points made in the article and came up with a concept of my own. Wilbon’s reasons why to pay the athletes don’t have a strong backbone to them and his ideas on how to pay athletes are simply not feasible. A point made by Wilbon is that the poor athletes have no spending money, which accounts for a large percent of college programs. This is a false accusation. Although not every student athlete receives grants, the NCAA will provide the low income athletes and their families a Pell Grant worth $5,500 per year that can be spent on anything. For this year, The NCAA gave out over $31 million in Pell Grants. Since the NCAA has originated, they have been helping out colleges with supporting the financial needs of athletes that are not met through the school. Wilbon also believes that the only collegiate athletes that should be paid are the ones that are on revenue producing teams. In most cases this would be the football teams and men’s basketball teams. While this may not seem fair to the other teams, Wilbon’s reason is simple; Capitalism. The only players that deserve to be paid are the ones that can make the NCAA money. This could cause problems within the United States court systems however. Even if you wanted to pay the revenue-producing athletes, Titles VII and IX could withhold the process. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination against race, color, culture, etc. If you were to start paying college athletes, then they would become employees of the NCAA and they would all have to be paid the same wage or salary to avoid discrimination. Also, Title IX was established to avoid discrimination of sex. In Wilbon’s scenario, only men’s basketball would be paid, causing a discrimination against women’s basketball. Not only would there be a discrepancy in the court system, but also in the recruiting system if teams were to start paying their athletes. If certain universities and colleges start paying their athletes, then the players would not choose the school based on the academics and facilities, but rather how much money they were getting offered. The bigger the schools, the more money they would be able to offer and in essences, this would create power houses within the different leagues and conferences. Once there is a dominant team in the conference, it personally becomes much less interesting to watch, as you almost know who is going to win before the game even starts. This could make the NCAA lose money in the long run, if colleges were to pay their athletes. Wilbon acknowledges that players receive scholarships for tuition, room, board, and books, but argues that it’s not enough of a compensation for some of the players. I understand that in some cases, the revenues produced by the team could exceed the expenses of an athlete’s college bills. But a situation like that is few and far between, as only 22 Division 1 schools out of 120 made a profit (Bennett). With just over 18% of athletic programs making money, it sounds implausible for schools to pay their athletes. Wilbon doesn’t bring this up in his argument, but education is impossible to put a monetary value on. While the college athlete isn’t getting paid, he is receiving free education that can change his life dramatically in the grand scheme of things. Without the opportunity these college athletes are given, most of them would not go to college, and consequently end up in a very different lifestyle afterwards, odds being worse off. Along the lines of this subject, is the reason for college in the first place. Wilbon doesn’t mention or even hint to this in his article, but nonetheless it is still an extremely important factor that is one of the main reasons why collegiate athletes still don’t get paid to this day. College was made as a way to continue your schooling to receive a higher education. Notice the key word in that sentence; education. College wasn’t made for athletes, that’s why when one says they’re a â€Å"student-athlete,† the student part comes first, simply because being a student is more important than the sport itself. If a college athlete was to be paid, there’s no doubt in my mind that the importance of education would decrease substantially. While being a collegiate athlete you also receive benefits that most college students would be extremely thankful for. If you are a part of a decent football team, you will go to a bowl game, which is essentially a week vacation in hot tropical place at an all-inclusive resort. Or if you are on an average basketball team, you will be invited to the March Madness tournament to stay up to three weeks away from school in a city filled with activities and events to keep you busy. Not only are these players getting treated to a vacation, but these are the same players that Wilbon wants to pay. Along with the free vacations, these college athletes have an opportunity that is second to none. For four years, these athletes get to show their talents to their potential employers. A regular student, like me, has a maximum of 15 minutes to impress an employer looking to hire. And you’re an athlete, so you don’t need to assemble a resume, if your good enough, your performance should say it all. While I disagree with Wilbon’s reasons why athletes should be paid, I find his reasoning that the NCAA should be paying them absurd. Wilbon argues that the NCAA is so greedy and selfish because they make all this money and essentially don’t pay their employees (the athletes). When looking at it from afar, this can appear to be right, and Wilbon persuades the reader by emphasizing the $774 million made from the college basketball tournament, March Madness last year and the $175 million made from 5 of the college football bowl games. However, these are the only two substantial money contributors to the NCAA funds. When all this money is collected, the NCAA distributes their revenues as follows, 60% to Division 1 schools, 19% to services and programs dedicated to the athletes, 13% to the championship events, and 4% for other services like the Eligibility Center. If you do the math, that leaves 4% for the NCAA to run their headquarters and pay their own employees. To me that’s not selfish at all and they help the schools out more than enough with the money they give them and the services they provide them (â€Å"Distribution Money†). To go into a deeper meaning of these numbers, it is necessary to understand what the NCAA truly does for the colleges and their players. The 60% that is given to the Division 1 schools can be spent however they would like to. It is typically spent on things like some of the universities salaries, grants-in-aid, facilities maintenance, team travel, game expenses, equipment, uniforms, and many miscellaneous expenses that are hard to keep track of. Another big portion of their revenues are the services and programs that they provide to the universities and athletes, which is 19% of their total revenue. These services and programs consist of scholarship programs for athletes, legal management, membership programs, research grants, sport committees and some smaller programs for the students. The bottom line is that they spend so much money on trying to keep the universities and students in good standing, that they honestly can’t afford to pay the students. When the revenues are done being divided up into the different segments, they are left with a measly 4% of the pie for themselves (Schlabach). Even though Wilbon gives a ridiculous way to pay athletes through the NCAA, he also gives another solution that is much more feasible. His other proposition is actually plausible and in my mind, an honest way to earn money for a collegiate athlete. Another way that Wilbon thinks college athletes should be able to make money is through endorsing products or being sponsored by companies. In my view, this is not only achievable, but it is fair to everyone as well. By giving the opportunity to star in a commercial or whatever it may be, it gives the chance for the athlete to make money while working for it too. This way, it is reasonable because athletes can’t have a normal job due to their demanding schedule, but at the same time; they can make a little money on the side just like the conventional students at their college would. In addition to permitting athletes to endorse products, it would also save the NCAA from leading expensive investigations that try to discovery these very same acts. Point being, I’m not completely against college athletes receiving a paycheck, but it’s not attainable if you are trying to get the colleges or the NCAA to cut the checks. Both, colleges and the NCAA have mass amounts of money coming in but that doesn’t change the fact that they both run on tight budgets that have very little degree of flexibility within them. On the other hand, if a corporation or any outside company wants to pay the athlete in return for their endorsement, then so be it, it’s just like any other job a college student is doing, but glorified. College athletes are like any other person, they want to make money, so let them do it, just not at the cost of the NCAA or their respective colleges. Works Cited Bennett, Dashiell. â€Å"Only 22 Of 120 Division I Athletic Programs Made Money Last Year. † Business Insider. N. p. , 15 June 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. . â€Å"Distribution of the Money. † NCAA Champion, n. d. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. . â€Å"National Collegiate Athletic Association. † Where Does the Money Go? N. p. , n. d. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. . Schlabach, Mark. â€Å"NCAA: Where Does the Money go? † ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, n. d. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. . Wilbon, Michael. â€Å"College Athletes Deserve to Be paid. † ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, 18 July 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. . How to cite Should College Athletes Be Paid, Papers