Why D1 Athletes Should Be Paid

Trying to Get That composing consort to the NCAA, student-athletes ar students first and athletes second. However over the last decade there have been umteen straitss raised about what the actual definition of what a student-athlete re tout ensembley 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 remunerative athletes for their services?By looking at the trillions of dollars a year that the barter of college sports generates just in television and radio snip alone, indicates that student athletes should be paid. If these schools and the NCAA are making billions of dollars from college sports, therefore why shouldnt the athletes get paid for doing what they do? After doing some research over a year ago and taking another look at this issue now, the question about gainful college athletes has st ayed the same.The debate whether to pay college athletes or not arose in the 1980s later Southern Methodist University was caught paying football game players for their services. Upon discovery of these infractions, SMU was administered the death penalty, including loss of scholarships and no participation in bowl games for quintet years. The controversy surrounding paying college athletes catch up withms to have risen from this unfortunate circumstance and has been cultivated into a broad social efflorescenceic today.Following the SMU scandal in the late 1980s the NCAA rewrote their guidebook that describes an athletes position in an academic institution. According to the NCAA, Student-athletes are students first and athletes second. They are not university employees who are paid for their craunch (NCAA. com). Looking at the arguments made by the NCAA, they make a valid point in masking how athletes are compensated for their participation in sports. According to the NCAA, Many athletes receive athletics 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 give 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 respective(prenominal) countenance 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, large Division 1 sports conferences gestural deals with large television networks, generating millions of dollars in r levelue 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 National College Playe rs Association, If allowed access to the fair market like the pros, the average FBS football and basketball player would be worth approximately $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 actually 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 take 1. 3 billion dollars off the top and, invest it, and make it available for stipends to college athletes? (Wilbon). Another person in favor of paying college athletes is former Penn postulate 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 student-athletes then they should at le ast give them the financial means to return for an extra year to complete a degree after their playing days 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 deplete his/ her degree.So why not help them out financially and allow them to finish? Looking at the large amounts of money going to conferences and universities due to the profits of college sports, its easy to see where the debate about paying college athletes comes from. This isnt a discussion of moral issue or respectable 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?