Should college athletes be paid and provided with additional advantages?

When it comes to a topic like college athletes and the money that they earn, there are a number of different sides to the argument. We've got the money side, the media exposure side, and the elimination of corruption side. Each one of these has its own set of benefits and disadvantages, and so it's important to make sure you know what each side is trying to accomplish before you decide whether or not to pay your college athletes.

Arguments for paying

It's no secret that athletes play sports. They put in countless hours and put their bodies at risk. However, it's a big question whether athletes should be paid for their efforts. Despite the fact that the NCAA isn't in favor of paying college athletes, a large percentage of Americans believe that it's important.

There are a number of reasons why some people support compensation for student-athletes. One is the fact that they provide a great deal of revenue to colleges and universities. Another reason is that they are often from low-income families, and they need to make money to support themselves.

As with most things, there are both pros and cons. Ultimately, it's up to colleges and universities to decide if they want to pay college athletes. Some argue that it's a good way to help students get a jump start on their education and that it will attract better players.

On the other hand, there are those who argue that it's an unnecessary step. After all, there are plenty of other opportunities for college athletes to earn money.

Many schools offer work study programs where students are paid for working. Several universities also have full scholarships. In addition, they invest a large amount of resources in improving the social lives of their students.

But while there are many advantages to the work-study program, it does not address the most pressing issue of paying athletes. A better solution would be to pay college athletes in line with the cost of a regular college education.

One example of this is the Historical Basketball League. The league, which is operated by Andy Rubin, has been in business for over a decade.

Arguments against

If you are a college student, you may have heard a lot of arguments against paying and giving athletes additional advantages. One of the most common objections is that it would take away from the basic difference between amateur and professional sports. However, there are a number of reasons to pay college athletes.

Athletes bring in massive amounts of money to universities. In fact, the NCAA generates close to a billion dollars in revenue every year. Those profits are not shared with players. Instead, schools funnel money into athletic departments.

This money creates a bidding war between colleges. This leads to some schools generating millions of dollars per year from football. They can then afford to pay top athletes more than other schools. That means that fewer players can attend smaller schools.

Another argument against paying students is that it is an unfair way to treat student-athletes. Some argue that it is simply not fair to treat the athletes as students, especially when they are putting their bodies on the line each game.

Many college athletes come from broken homes and low-income neighborhoods. As a result, they need to earn money to support themselves and their families. College athletics provide them with a chance to make some money, which they can use to get out of a bad situation.

The University of Southern California and Stanford University, among others, have strongly opposed the idea of paying college athletes. However, the College Athlete Economic Freedom Act, introduced by Senator Chris Murphy in February, would allow students to unionize and be paid for their athletic efforts.

Proponents of the pay model argue that it is a way to bring income equality to college athletics. But the question is, are scholarships really the answer?

Media exposure

There has long been a debate about the merits of paying college athletes. Various reasons have been cited by the critics. They argue that the college's primary role is to provide a rewarding education. And they claim that introducing pay would be a logistical nightmare.

Those who believe in the idea of paying athletes say that it would encourage financial awareness. They also contend that it would increase the need for intense NCAA oversight.

In addition, they argue that the school's primary purpose should remain at the forefront of the athletics department. Many athletes come from low-income families, and it is expected that they will contribute to their household's financial well-being.

College athletes generate billions of dollars each year. This money helps colleges to build facilities, fund academic programs, and support other athletics initiatives. But the majority of student-athletes don't get full scholarships.

The vast majority of college coaches are white. It is difficult to argue that black athletes should not be compensated. Nevertheless, racial justice efforts at colleges often don't extend to paying black athletes.

One of the biggest money makers in college sports is basketball. The NCAA has a gargantuan television contract with Turner and CBS, which brings in $800 million each year. Another big source of revenue is baseball, which generates billions of dollars each year.

Aside from making money, intercollegiate sports teach students how to work as a team, develop mental health and physical fitness, and teach healthy habits. Moreover, they are often the inspiration for young people to pursue a college degree.

A recent study by Ohio State University found that 53% of students in the state favor paying their athletes. Other states have passed similar laws, and dozens more will be in effect by July 2021.

Elimination of corruption

College athletes have been in the news a lot recently. They are under investigation for various charges, including recruiting fees. Some schools have been accused of offering under the table payments to attract the most talented high school athletes. Others are accused of using fraudulent grades to stay eligible.

The NCAA's "Sanity Code" was enacted in 1948 to prevent the concealment of benefits for college athletes. During this time, sportswriters and reformers were concerned that commercialism would affect college sports. A recent bribery scandal involved Adidas executives.

The NCAA's "Sanity" code stipulates that money paid to an athlete should only be based on financial need. That way, there's no incentive for athletes to cheat. But that didn't stop the NCAA from offering players such benefits as insurance coverage and cost of attendance stipends.

Recently, the FBI has made several arrests in a college basketball corruption investigation. These arrests should serve as a warning to other major college programs.

If you're a pre-pro basketball player, you risk losing your scholarship if you get into trouble. You can be fined for wearing corporate logos, and you can be punished if you are caught cheating. Getting into trouble and losing your scholarship can damage your reputation, but it's not the only threat to the sport.

Schools are making big money off of college sports. Football teams at big-revenue schools earn between $40 million and $80 million a year, and they pay their coaches multi-million-dollar salaries. This money is funneled through the NCAA, which makes money off of the sales of NCAA jerseys.

For years, athletes have been cheated. Athletes were told they were eligible for benefits, but it was later revealed that they were not. Even Texas Christian, which offered players nine months of medical bills, failed to pay Waldrep's bill after he was found to have a broken neck.