The notion of paying college football players has been an ongoing debate since the early 1900’s. With current television revenue resulting from NCAA football bowl games and March Madness in basketball, there is now a clamoring for compensating both football and basketball players beyond that of an athletic scholarship. Which leads me to believe college-athletes who generate millions of dollars in revenue for their college-universities should receive a source of payment from the NCAA.
Scholarships that's student athletes receive to play sports in college do not cover the full cost of college universities. In the world of sports , starting from high school a scholarship is an ideal dream of any athlete at any capacity. Scholarships are deemed as a free education and oppurtunity to play at the next level. In the article , "Cash , Check , or Charge ?" The author underlies athletes who receive a "full" scholarship covers room , board , books , tuitions , and fees. All universities estimate that the actual cost if attendance runs between $1500 to $2500. This goes on to disprove , the evolution of why should the NCAA pay college athletes for free question. Whether the athlete walks-on , receives a partial scholarship , or a full ride they'll be paying to attend college and to receive an education. In "Cash , Check , or Charge ? " author Douglas Looney claims "the basic reasons to pay collegiate athletes is that schools and boosters can't be stopped from doing what they do anyway" (n.p). Student-athletes would be less likely to violate NCAA rules by receiving money from sponsors that allocate larger violations for the college-university because receiving money or incentives from boosters results in NCAA infractions and loss of athletes eligibility . If the NCAA allowed stipends or a salary student athletes would no longer run to boosters for bare necessities such as food , clothes , etc. They would have already been provided with enough money to accomplish their...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document