When it comes to college athletics, there always will be a problem that arises. It is one of the most controversial topics there is. One of the main issues within athletics is the idea of whether to pay college athletes or not. Several studies have been done along with articles from various sources. This has been on the rise especially since “March Madness” is coming up. “March Madness” may only consist of three weekends, however, an 11 billion dollar deal is made to televise the games (Wilbon). This is when you have to take the time to sit back and contemplate whether these college athletes really are getting the fair end of the stick. Under NCAA laws it is forbidden to pay these athletes for their performance yet at the same time they clearly are talented enough to have a profitable market.
If you were to ask me a few months ago if college athletes were deserving of salary, I would simply answer no because it was all I knew. It is clear to me now that these athletes are well deserving of some kind of income. College athletes should be paid for the fact alone that they deserve it for their hard work. Another reason they should be paid is due to the fact they are not really being educated for “free”. Payment of athletes can lastly be justified because of the commercialized entertainment they provide. These are just a few reasons to rationalize the payment of athletes, but strike an evident point of why it should become necessary.
Steve Spurrier states, “Being paid is nothing new for students in other extracurricular activities. When I was editor of my school paper, The Volante, at the University of South Dakota in 1949-50, I was paid $15 a week. That "job" now pays $95 a week.” Spurrier raises the point that as college students many of us have on-campus jobs. Students are paid to work for a club event, as an ambassador, as a waitress at the college dinner spot, or a librarian assistant. These jobs are given to students due to the interest of a future job....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document