Big Time College Athletics example essay topic

Should college athletes get paid more money? There has been a constant debate the past few years on whether college athletes, particularly football players, should get paid. In 1988, the Nebraska legislature passed a bill that would allow the University of Nebraska football players to receive better cash incentives. The bill was later vetoed by Governor Kay Orr, who was governor of Nebraska at the time (O'Toole eta l. 2)...

The dispute comes from coaches, parents of the players, and the players themselves arguing that universities make money off their own athletes and the athletes, in turn, do not receive any money from that. Many NCAA officials disagree stating their case that college athletes already receive enough money through scholarships and other financial aids, such as Pell Grants and other government aids. Although there are many positive sides to each story, the following paragraphs will examine why college athletes should be paid. Even though the 1988 Nebraska legislative bill was vetoed, Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers is still fighting for his Cornhuskers football players saying they should be paid more.

Chambers has said to the NPR, "They are unpaid workers and in big-time college athletics, not just football, there are no amateurs. Whenever you get something of value for performing athletically, you " re professional. They (referring to NCAA officials) call it a scholarship, fees, books, tuition and so forth. What I want is the athletes to have some spendable money" (O'Toole eta l. 2). He is wrestling with NCAA officials and many others in trying to get a bill to pass in where athletes will be paid just above federal minimum wage.

But the bill is getting exploited by NCAA rules and by the official in the Big 12. According to Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg, the bill, if passed in Nebraska, has a slim chance of passing in other states that has schools in the Big 12. He states, "At this point, I know of no other state legislative activity that relates to a bill like this" (cite). Weiberg expands on how he is not alone in this decision by saying, "Our presidents and chancellors have been uniformly opposed to any plan that would give the appearance of play-for-pay" (O'Toole eta l. 2). With these statements it seems like Chambers doesn't have good position in getting the bill passed, but the bill can initiate an argument saying that if college athletes do not get paid, the temptation of illegal consumption of money by athletes could rise.

In agreeing with Weiberg, Wally Renfro, who is an assistant to NCAA president Myles Brand, states, "It (the bill) shouldn't happen for two reasons. One is philosophical. It's not the model of intercollegiate athletics. Second, it's impractical. They " re basically talking, I think, about paying football players.

I don't think that's going to stand the test of a court challenge from students who play basketball or students who play baseball or students in the tennis program" (O'Toole eta l. 2). With unfairness to other students, they would file lawsuits because of failure to receive the same type of incentives from the university. In recent documents sent out by the University of Arkansas to their prospective student-athletes, it showed their athletes were receiving a total award of $22,848. For fall and summer tuition the sum came to $7,569, which could vary from university to university.

At the U of A, athletes received a total of $6,605 in off campus housing in 2003, which is divided up into a set amount of money given to athletes monthly. These figures vary every year, taking into consideration changes in the tuition fees. If student-athletes were to get paid an extra amount, then the amount would need to be under $2,000. Jim Winn states in his article "College Athletes Should Not Get Paid" that if athletes actually got paid then the whole recruiting system would be tarnished, leaving athletes a choice of which school would pay them the most money (Winn 1). Paying athletes would not only be unethical, but it would lead to the corruption of the college sports world (Winn 1). He also states that "The NCAA establishes rules and regulations for universities to follow, and one of the most important rules is that student athletes should not receive any money with the exception of scholarships towards their tuition and housing" (Winn 1).

This long debate on whether to pay a college athlete or not will always be ongoing. Athletes will always demand for more money, claiming the money they receive is not enough. In today's world, the cost of living is on the rise leaving athletes receiving the same amount of money they have always received, which in turn makes it tough on them. If each university would give their athletes $1,000 more money a semester based on their athletic and academic performance, then I do not see a NCAA having a problem with that. If the athlete does not perform academically and athletically, then he or she will not get the money or receive a smaller amount of that $1,000. As a student-athlete, I can tell you that the amount of money that athletes receive today is not enough, but I have survived.