30 April 2014
Are college athlete’s players or employees? The idea of paying a college athlete appears to be outrageous to some. The thought of giving someone money for something they have chosen to do may not appear to be fair. The greatest concern is where to draw the line. Should the decision be based on the amount of money and fame the program generates? Why should athletes be treated special and receive compensation for their contribution to the school? One major factor is that athletes make numerous sacrifices beyond that of a nonathletic student. Many athletes can’t seek employment to help offset the expenses of college because they are on the field or court for the majority of their day. Their time and effort is devoted to that of the school, thus potentially sacrificing their education. In many cases, athletes don’t receive funding for college, which means that not only are they paying financially, but physically to compete. The school takes in money from ticket sales, television contracts, and sport-related merchandise, just to name a few. If the athletes are fortunate enough to receive a scholarship, usually that is the only benefit. This in turn leads to taking out loans and having to look for other scholarships or sources of compensation, but this doesn’t stop them from being involved in the teams’ activities. The real question is why shouldn’t an athlete in college be paid to play? College athletes are the real moneymakers for the school, and they should be paid to play.
Recently, the Vikings running back, Adrian Peterson was interviewed about his opinion on whether or not college athletes should be paid; he made it very clear that he was all for payment of players. Peterson basically stated that, “When he was in college that the jersey and ticket sells, made a lot of money for the university.” College sports provide a huge source of the universities income. He continues to stress his point...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document