Why D1 Athletes Should Be Paid

Trying to Get That Paper According to the NCAA, student-athletes ar students first and athletes second. However over the last decade in that location clear been many an(prenominal) oral sexs raised about what the actual definition of what a student-athlete sincerely is. This is because of the millions of dollars generated by institutions that broadcasting and promoting these student-first athletes. The main question that arises from this is should the NCAA and or institutions/ conferences be give athletes for their services?By looking at the billions of dollars a grade that the business enterprise of college sports generates just in television and radio time alone, indicates that student athletes should be remunerative. If these schools and the NCAA atomic number 18 making billions of dollars from college sports, past why shouldnt the athletes get paid for doing what they do? After doing some enquiry over a year ago and taking an new(prenominal) look at this issue now, th e question about paying college athletes has stayed the same.The surround whether to pay college athletes or non arose in the 1980s after Southern Methodist University was caught paying football players for their services. Upon breakthrough of these infractions, SMU was administered the death penalty, including loss of scholarships and no participation in pipe bowl games for five years. The controversy surrounding paying college athletes seems to have risen from this fatal circumstance and has been cultivated into a huge social line of longitudeic like a shot.Following the SMU dirt in the late 1980s the NCAA rewrote their guidebook that describes an athletes division in an academic institution. According to the NCAA, Student-athletes argon students first and athletes second. They are not university employees who are paid for their labor (NCAA. com). Looking at the arguments made by the NCAA, they make a valid point in showing how athletes are compensated for their participa tion in sports. According to the NCAA, Many athletes receive fun grants-in-aid that can be worth more than $100,000 (NCAA. om). There are many people who would agree with the NCAA in saying that the scholarships given to the student-athletes is enough compensation for the student-athletes to cover their costs of attending school. There are many other topics that all have a role in deciding whether or not to pay college athletes mainly television, memorabilia sales, and individual endorsement deals. The question itself hasnt changed over the years its the financial situation that college institutions and athletes now are exposed to that has changed.All seemed fine and well until, starting in the early 2000s, outstanding Division 1 sports conferences signed deals with large television networks, generating millions of dollars in taxation for the institutions who were a part of the conference. So the question arose again, should we pay college athletes? According to research done by the home(a) College Players Association, If allowed access to the fair market homogeneous the pros, the average FBS football and basketball player would be worth roughly $121,048 and $265,027 respectively (not counting individual commercial endorsement deals) (NCPANOW. rg). People today are still opposed to paying college athletes, but the case for in reality paying them grows stronger year after year. According to ESPN columnist Michael Wilbon, college football and basketball generate over 11 billion dollars in television revenue. He argues, why not pose 1. 3 billion dollars off the top and, invest it, and make it available for stipends to college athletes? (Wilbon). Another person in advance of paying college athletes is former Penn State basketball player Stephen Danley.In his interview with National Review reporter, Duncan Currie, he says that, in certain programs players are even allowed to take enough credits to graduate in four years. If they the colleges want studen t-athletes then they should at least give them the financial means to return for an free year to complete a degree after their playing eld are over (Currie). These two arguments not only show that there is in fact funding to pay these athletes, but that scholarships dont cover the actual amount of time it takes for a student to discharge his/ her degree.So why not help them out financially and allow them to bring to an end? Looking at the large amounts of money going to conferences and universities due to the gelt of college sports, its easy to see where the debate about paying college athletes comes from. This isnt a discussion of moral issue or ethical debate rather, this is simply an issue of looking at the numbers generated and whether or not to pay these athletes for benefiting their schools in popularity and financial gains. So after looking at everything that encompasses college sports, the debate continues should college athletes be paid?