COOPER, KENNETH J. "Should College Athletes Be Paid To Play?." Diverse: Issues In Higher Education 28.10 (2011): 12.MasterFILE Premier. Web. 23 Nov. 2015. The source gives both sides of the argument whether college athletes should be paid. Two law professors argue college athletes are “employees” under the federal labor laws. The common laws has three test whether if the athletes are employees. One of the test provides they are employees because coaches have control over the athletes. The NCCA believes that college athletes are not employees under the law or by the schools they attend. The athletes attend school to earn a degree at the same time as completing in sports. A former basketball star said “I never felt like an employee of Duke University”.
…show more content…
2015. Web 19 Nov. 2015. Economists believe college athletes should be paid. They claim it is unfair and illegal. The National Collegiate Athletic Association has argue students-athletes should not get paid. Students join sports voluntary. The purpose of the students-athlete is to get an education and not to attend to get paid playing sports. Most schools in the NCAA Division one would not able to afford to pay athletes. According to USA Today, only 23 out of 228 public schools in NCAA Division one was profitable in 2012. The source give valid points for both sides. I will be including the ideas why they should not be paid in my …show more content…
Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Nov. 2015. The article argue that student-athletes should be paid. Students-athletes are receiving scholarships to cover their education in exchange for competing in the NCAA. Currently student-athletes are not financially compensated. On the other hand, coaches and trainer are paid very well. Student-athletes argue they need guarantees such as health, living expenses, and academic. The cons of paying student-athletes is the value of education may decline and fairness in competition. If the NCAA provide financially compensation for student-athletes it would disregard the purpose of getting an education. They article provided pros and cons of the debate. The article give me ideas regarding why students-athletes should not be financially compensated. I found this source to be helpful in providing key points for both sides of the
2015. Web 19 Nov. 2015. Economists believe college athletes should be paid. They claim it is unfair and illegal. The National Collegiate Athletic Association has argue students-athletes should not get paid. Students join sports voluntary. The purpose of the students-athlete is to get an education and not to attend to get paid playing sports. Most schools in the NCAA Division one would not able to afford to pay athletes. According to USA Today, only 23 out of 228 public schools in NCAA Division one was profitable in 2012. The source give valid points for both sides. I will be including the ideas why they should not be paid in my …show more content…
Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Nov. 2015. The article argue that student-athletes should be paid. Students-athletes are receiving scholarships to cover their education in exchange for competing in the NCAA. Currently student-athletes are not financially compensated. On the other hand, coaches and trainer are paid very well. Student-athletes argue they need guarantees such as health, living expenses, and academic. The cons of paying student-athletes is the value of education may decline and fairness in competition. If the NCAA provide financially compensation for student-athletes it would disregard the purpose of getting an education. They article provided pros and cons of the debate. The article give me ideas regarding why students-athletes should not be financially compensated. I found this source to be helpful in providing key points for both sides of the