Issues on Paying College Athletes

For several(prenominal) years amateurism has posed a cro march ong controversy in college gamblings. Being a skipper athlete is reservation the final cut, this is when athletes get paid for their talents for the use of entertainment. The athletes ar addicted contr moments referable to their level of skill and performance. College is for schoolchilds to get an education and prep be for a career. just about athletes attend college to get an education serious in case they fagt halt it to a master key sport level. College athleticism could be considered a stepping stone, it is a preparation stage for student athletes hoping to move on to the professional level.Many athletes attend college and play sports, moreover when they get to the professional level, they still arent capable of performing as sanitary as expected. This is non the case with e truly athlete though, some of these young amateurs discharge the professional league and explode and achieve beyond their expect ations. Some of the collegiate athletes hit the professionals and perform better than experienced veterans. In the light of these positions, the principal Should college shams be paid? is often posed.This irresolution has been tossed around for a healthy number of years. It has probably been discussed since before college basketball players began to leave school early on to become pro. As a college athlete I often life that I deserve something extra, but every conviction I smelling this way I always end up re-evaluating the situation. Once Ive actually thought by the situation, I normally come to the terminal that college athletes are already being paid. The education we receive and the experience of earning a college degree has no price value.This is the identical thing South Florida discipline Seth Greenberg stated when he was asked should college basketball players be paid? in a series of irresolutions asked by The Tampa Tribune (available at tampabayonline. net/ final4/q&a. htm). It is a situation that college athletes generate millions of dollars of r even soue for universities, but despite the question, there are very important facts that are overlooked when it comes to discussing this issue. As I stated earlier, it is fact that college athletic programs produce a large sum of gold.This funds usually comes through television rights fees, bowl games, ticket sales and former(a) means. In light of these facts, many believe that student athletes deserve more than than just a scholarship or grant for their efforts. These facts could bring one to result that the financial arrangements between universities and student-athletes are unfairly balanced in the opt of the college institutions. There are many hidden facts that explain the impossibilities to pay our student athletes. At Notre Dame, for example, grants-in-aid to student-athletes are worth about $5 million a annually.Add that to the millions of dollars spent on travel, housing, equi pment, health care and several other cost and pretty soon, you are talking about big time money. So, while athletes generate millions of dollars for universities, there are also millions of dollars in expenses, most of which directly assist the student-athletes. Even at smaller colleges that do non generate as much money as the universities, the money generated through the sporting events usually invested in equipment and other necessities for the student-athletes.In other words, it is a two-way street, college athletes are well compensated, in other words well paid already. Without college most of Americas young athletes wouldnt even get the exposure needed to make an impression on for the professional leagues. The system has been around and working for many years now, the thought of changing the rules to enable college athletes to be paid jutms to me as a total act of greed. As stated by Mark (emailprotected net) in an article bring at www. mhoops. com the whole stinking show is rift of greed in my opinion.It is a fact that CBS forks over $3 billion, this is proof (in their minds) that they dont need to change anything. I live that if this money were cut, they would change things as quickly as possible. I see athletes being paid in college as a disadvantage, not only to the less blotto schools who wouldnt be able to afford the better players, but to the student/athletes as well. I feel that the colleges with the most money, and the wealthiest alumnis will always suffer the very best teams in college sports if this happens, this will leave the less wealthy colleges with the bottom of the barrel players.How could you expect the less wealthy schools to ever win? How fair could this rule transition be? Paying players to attend a school is cheating them of the education they would put on gotten better at another(prenominal) school to give them a better chance at pleasant a game of football, basketball, or what ever kind of sport they play. Sports are not promising, any athlete could swallow a career closedown injury at anytime however, the education they receive will always be able to open doors for them. Another reason why I feel that college athletes shouldnt be paid is because it is also expensive.Many colleges are not on the best budget. Some barely make enough money to support their team sports. CBS college basketball analyst Bill Packer, in the similar Tampa Tribune question series listed above states Its a moot question (Should college athletes be paid? ). Under style IX, what colleges do for one sport it has to do for all. Because of that, the funds arent available to pay students from each of a schools athletic programs. Paying basketball players is thrown out a lot in discussion, but if people understood the process of Title IX, they would realize paying(a) players would be an impossibility.This is something easily understandable, if colleges could afford this kind of money because they should be able to afford more and better scholarships. College is a place for education. Many people look at the money generated by college sports and start to imply that the athletes bringing this money in should benefit from it. These same people never seem to see that the college athletes already are. If these students were never given scholarships to attend these colleges then they probably wouldnt be there.The same athletes you see playing the many different sports they play in college, would more than belike be playing these same sports back home in the vicinity just for fun if they werent attending college. This makes you wonder why cleart they play sports in college without being paid? there isnt much of a difference. The opportunity to get an education should be enough, too many people get caught up in the money though. The humanity of sports has changed enormously because of greed. Professionalism is the level when athletes get paid. Paying college players would completely eliminate amateurism.Th at would make college players professional, but professionals are supposed to be the best of the best, the cream of the make for and all college athletes are not amongst the best so why should they be paid? Under the article of Title IX, paying one player means paying them all, and paying one sport means paying all sports in an institution, since all collegiate athletes arent the best players it seems to be a waist of money. The idea of paying college athletes is very demeaning. Since it is a cognize fact that many athletes do not go to class, and stay touch on in many mix-ups, the idea would only bring forth more comodity.I think paying college athletes would bring in more students who have no purpose in college besides playing sports. This would also alter the population at many schools. I also feel that this would be asking for more incidents and to occur. As many athletes get involved in violations at universities with partying, drinking, and drugs, one would think that the se rates would rise with several students who have no intentions on becoming educated on campus. This matter could be stereotypical, but at the same time it is a fact that several athletes drop out, flunk out, or are kicked out of school.My position is to march on them out, and not paying college athletes is one of the major ways to do so. If college athletes generate to get paid everyone will want to attend and for many that would be the only reason. This is not what college is designed for. College is a task, an opportunity, not a job, but it will prepare you for one in the future, if you prove yourself there then you will be paid. The principle is that the only way to eliminate this question would be to pay the college athletes, but that would produce a great go down in the population of education.To perform a task such as colleges would have to drop all scholarship college sports and allow colleges either to pass away Division III programs or own minor league teams where the players are paid (under some salary cap) but they wouldnt need to be college students. That would bring forth the problem of distinguishing getting the best students in a college and getting the best players. . I think that would take away from our golf-club and economics, leaving us with fewer professionals. College athletes should not be paid, this would eliminate the touch on purpose of attending college. Who would attend class.