If you put money in the equation, it could debase the essence of amateurism. But why are student-athletes not afforded the same compensation? There are many fans of collegiate-level sports who are fans because they believe the players at this level play with more passion and love of the sport than athletes at the professional level. One of the benefits of work-study programs is that it can supplement the credits earned while supplementing college tuition costs. This would allow for some part of the revenue to be channeled to compensating the players and give more meaning to collegiate athletics. Paying college athletes should not be something controversial, but something ethically right due to what they go through to get to this point. It is virtually impossible to have a payment scale across the board. One of these is the fact that college athletes are currently not being paid to play.
But for the sake of arguments, many people offer their arguments on the topic. Arguments against paying students also include that doing so favors traditional money-earning sports, such as basketball and football, and may not compensate men and women equally. One of these is the fact that college athletes are currently not being paid to play. It is clear here that the connection would purely be pegged on sports and payment. That would create conflicts between schools and athletes in a manner that is similar to the conflicts seen between owners and professional athletes. They are still at risk every time they step inside the court or in the field, after all.
There are many advocates in favor of and many against the idea of paying athletes who play sports for their college or university. Money is not only made through tickets and sponsorships, but also from merchandise or video games that were fashioned after the likeness of some college athletes. Merit can be found in both arguments; however, the changes that would be necessary to put the payment practice into place would take years to implement. There are many pros to paying college athletes. This allows you to find a good fit while we do most of the hard work for you. It would create opportunities to unionize.
It could encourage schools to cut other programs. If athletics is treated like a work-study program, there could be issues of equality in pay that would need to be evaluated. Others argue that paying students puts pressure on them to perform well in sports, and may detract attention from academic studies. It gives student athletes a much-needed income. Although students would still be required to meet academic standards to qualify for academic programs, paying athletes for sports participation would likely shift personal priorities. List of Cons of Paying College Athletes 1. 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.
This will not tie the students to debts that will take them half their lives to pay. Don't worry, we don't spam. Many schools use the funds from their athletics programs to fund other programs and activities. With television contracts and shoe deals alone, the athletes are really bringing in the money. Also, there is an issue on equal pay among players in different divisions.
All these questions reveal how difficult it would be to change the college athletic system to compensate college athletes. College athletes deserve being paid because without them, college sports would not be existent. Coupled with creating fair standards for compensation, education should be prioritized for these college athletes. By definition, paying the athlete would make them a professional. Reasons Why College Athletes Should Not Be Paid Paragraph 3: Paying college athletes would remove their competitive nature and the passion they have for the games they participate in. Most would also agree that university programs should emphasize academics over athletics. List of the Cons of Paying College Athletes 1.
Aside from that, larger divisions could monopolize athletic talent, taking away the chance for smaller schools to win major titles. If they had to start paying players, the most probable result would be other programs suffering. Most other students are not receiving these benefits, and will come out of school with a great deal of. There are many benefits and disadvantages to paying them, and this debate is sure to rage on for some time to come. However, the decision whether to provide compensation to students or not is one that is difficult to resolve.
If so, then there would be an undue burden placed on smaller schools that compete at higher levels. Vittana's goal is to publish high quality content on some of the biggest issues that our world faces. Some students in other programs would likely not earn the same amount as an athlete for their work-study program. If schools were to begin paying players, they could also help these students build a foundation of financial literacy. It motivates both existing and potential players.