Sports! College! College Sports! What’s not to love about it. Well, there’s the fact that your favorite player isn’t paid. There’s a reason. These all these college athletes work really hard for your entertainment, not to mention to fund their school. Factors like time, merchandise, and management all play into this. Supporting the Payment of College Athletes is supporting the fair payment of hard work.
Time. That’s something these athletes give up a lot of to their sport. They also spend more than 40 hours a week in practice. They work more than a full time employee. They don’t always get a full ride. And a full ride doesn’t always cover their full expenses. They still have to pay for books, meals, living arrangements, and other things. …show more content…
They would now have their own income and could learn how to manage their money. This is to prepare them for later on in life. They will eventually have a good job that they went to college for. This will help them manage their money in the future.
Finally, there are the courts, which are also fighting over how much to pay athletes. When Judge Claudia Wilken decided the O’Bannon case in 2014, she ruled that the N.C.A.A. was in violation of antitrust laws and that players should receive money to bridge the full “cost of attendance” at college. (Under pressure from the so-called Power 5 conferences, the N.C.A.A. agreed to this a few months later.) She also said athletes should receive an additional $5,000, to be held in trust until they left school.
An appeals court agreed with her about the cost of attendance but struck down the extra $5,000. There is now a new case before Judge Wilken, of the United States District Court in Northern California, that, if the plaintiffs win, will get the N.C.A.A. out of the compensation-setting business and allow the conferences to set their own rules for …show more content…
Smith College sports economist, Andrew Zimbalist, says one way would be to cap the compensation of coaches and athletic directors. He has also called for players to receive more benefits, like health insurance, and to reap outside income from their image and likeness. He suggests a salary cap on coaches, athletic directors, AND players.
They should also be given a minimum salary. One university might want to offer a star halfback $40,000, while another might offer him $60,000. The player would make a choice based not on a recruiter’s sweet-talking promises — or not solely on that — but on cold, hard cash.
I can see you recoiling at this notion. But let me ask: Is offering cash compensation really that much worse than the current system, in which universities build lavish facilities and spend absurd sums on their “programs” to lure good players? Doesn’t it make more sense to give some of that money to the players? It would actually be less expensive.
Universities could hit up boosters to put money into a fund — tax-deductible under current law — to pay the players’ salaries. That would diminish their incentive to sneak money and benefits to athletes under the
Time. That’s something these athletes give up a lot of to their sport. They also spend more than 40 hours a week in practice. They work more than a full time employee. They don’t always get a full ride. And a full ride doesn’t always cover their full expenses. They still have to pay for books, meals, living arrangements, and other things. …show more content…
They would now have their own income and could learn how to manage their money. This is to prepare them for later on in life. They will eventually have a good job that they went to college for. This will help them manage their money in the future.
Finally, there are the courts, which are also fighting over how much to pay athletes. When Judge Claudia Wilken decided the O’Bannon case in 2014, she ruled that the N.C.A.A. was in violation of antitrust laws and that players should receive money to bridge the full “cost of attendance” at college. (Under pressure from the so-called Power 5 conferences, the N.C.A.A. agreed to this a few months later.) She also said athletes should receive an additional $5,000, to be held in trust until they left school.
An appeals court agreed with her about the cost of attendance but struck down the extra $5,000. There is now a new case before Judge Wilken, of the United States District Court in Northern California, that, if the plaintiffs win, will get the N.C.A.A. out of the compensation-setting business and allow the conferences to set their own rules for …show more content…
Smith College sports economist, Andrew Zimbalist, says one way would be to cap the compensation of coaches and athletic directors. He has also called for players to receive more benefits, like health insurance, and to reap outside income from their image and likeness. He suggests a salary cap on coaches, athletic directors, AND players.
They should also be given a minimum salary. One university might want to offer a star halfback $40,000, while another might offer him $60,000. The player would make a choice based not on a recruiter’s sweet-talking promises — or not solely on that — but on cold, hard cash.
I can see you recoiling at this notion. But let me ask: Is offering cash compensation really that much worse than the current system, in which universities build lavish facilities and spend absurd sums on their “programs” to lure good players? Doesn’t it make more sense to give some of that money to the players? It would actually be less expensive.
Universities could hit up boosters to put money into a fund — tax-deductible under current law — to pay the players’ salaries. That would diminish their incentive to sneak money and benefits to athletes under the