Do College Athletes deserve to share in the profits reaped by their colleges and the NCAA, or is a college education an ample reward for their efforts?
Please give reasons for each side of the argument.
1 Answer | Add Yours
In a recent landmark lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the NCAA can't prevent college players from selling the rights to their names, images and likenesses, which simply means that players will now share a portion of the NCAA's revenues from the use of their names/images in broadcasts and video games. This money (a minimum of $5000/year) would be put into a trust fund and would be available to the player once they leave the college.
There are arguments on either side of this landmark ruling.
Pro: Athletes should be paid.
The NCAA makes millions of dollars every year from broadcast rights using athletes images and names and should pay the athletes a fair share of the revenues. Salaries for coaches have spiked in last few years. Athletes have been paid a pittance compared to these numbers and they deserve their fair share.
Con: Athletes should not be paid.
How are college athletes different from other fee-paying students who provide services to the college by working for the college newspaper or student senate? Athletes normally get sports scholarships and the NCAA recently allowed additional stipends as well. So they are getting a share of the revenues anyway, which is much more than non-athlete students are offered and hence athletes shouldn't be paid anything more than what is already paid to them through scholarships and the cost of attendance.
We’ve answered 318,996 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question