Even though people think much of the revenue does not go directly back into the classroom, the NCAA states, “The money is distributed in more than a dozen ways, with more than 90 percent going to support NCAA schools, conferences and nearly half a million student-athletes.” Much of the revenue goes to funding more scholarships for future athletes and sponsorship. Any additional funds go to Division I schools that are successful with bringing in such revenue. Another argument is that if paid, good players would stay in school. Some believe that college athletes would stay in college longer if paid, but that also means college athletes might be paid for a little amount of time because some universities allow basketball athletes to indulge in the one and …show more content…
Peterson states, “Firstly, according to Jeffrey Dorfman, only a few collegiate sports actually bring in the money. College football, as well as men’s and women’s basketball, are the money makers as far as collegiate athletics are concerned.” Peterson also states, “Most other programs are actually cash strapped”. The issue then becomes should only football and basketball college athletes be paid? No, because that is not fair and there would be no fair way to pay college athletes.
The NCAA might bring in money, but some colleges are not a profitable. Anderson states, “the Auburn University athletic department posted a 17-million-dollar deficit in 2014.” Due to this deficit, Auburn University purchased a new high definition screen for the stadium in 2015 but that was meant to bring in money. Though most say the money made does not go back into the classroom, in 2014, the NCAA generated almost a billion dollars in revenue and it was then distributed back into various organization and institutions across the United