Why not pay college football players money since people are getting rich off of them?

Question

I think college athletes should get paid a small amount of money for doing what they do. They have no time to hold down a job to have a little bit of money. Look at all the money that goes into athletic apparal because a team is doing so good, think USC with Reggie Bush or the fact that the Ohio State did so well that they produced more money for other people to get rich off of them. There are plenty of reasons to pay a small allowance to players. Nothing huge just a little something. Give me a reason why we shouldn't.

Answer 1

probably because they're education is worth so much

Answer 2

We actually don't have it too bad. You have to understand that we're gettting an education that can be valued anywhere from 10 to 40k per year, plus living expenses.

My scholarship check each month is a little over $700 (separate from cost of education) for living expenses (it's adjusted based on cost of living, so the Cali schools are probably closer to 1100 or 1200). Most schools give the maximum amount of money that the NCAA allows.

There are still job opportunities like part-time summer work. The NCAA just wants the pay to equal the work (Rhett Bomar, Maurice Clarett, etc.). I work about 10 hours a week in the summer, and it's a nice supplement to my scholarship check.

Put it this way: I get $700 per month and pay about $400 for rent and utilities. That leaves $300 for food and entertainment. It's really not a bad deal.

Answer 3

There are a number of arguments forer not paying the college football player. Lets start with Title 9 is one of them as who is going to pay the female athlete and is it fair to pay one of the sexes and not the other. A second would be the divide that is already present from the traditional student and the student athlete. It is very clear that many of the student athletes are more athlete than student and leave many fo the college campuses with little to no debt for there degree (if the receive one), while many good to great students leave with a life time of debt for there college experience. Now throw compensation on top of the books, room, tuition, medical and you have truly widened the gap.

Now I do believe that as long as the system allows coaches to make 1000% more than many of the professors and move with little restriction; which is in stark contrast from the college player. Than compensation should be a consideration for in addition many of the student athletes receive none of the funds from the promotion of the university far after than college days are done and sign away any marketing rights to name and likeness. That is unfair and to me make the colleges a modern day plantation as white athletic directors and coaches yet again get wealthy off the backs of poor blacks. Where is the Abe Lincoln for the modern day college football player who is chained to a billion dollar chain gang called the BCS Bowl system?

Answer 4

Actually, I can't give you one reason why college football players should not get some sort of money. After all, in addition to practice, games, working out, they have those small nagging things called... oh what are they, I had this right on the tip of my... oh yeah, classes and homework.

They're not allowed to get jobs at fabulous places like Burger King to make any cash (not that they have time for it anyways), and there are a large percentage of them who are either on scholarship, or come from homes that are barely able to pay for tuition.

Meanwhile, the NCAA, the colleges, boosters, and every friggin network that carries college football are making more money every year than the gross national product of (pick your favorite third world country here), off their blood, sweat, and gatorade.

College athletes are at best indentured servants, making money for others while taking it up the tailpipe and saying "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

Answer 5

Not that you don't have a good point about the universities making a ton of dough on football and basketball, but the reasons they are not paid are:

- They are amateurs and students by tradition. You give them $5 bucks of non-scholarship cash and they are now professionals and mercenaries. There's a big cultural barrier to taking that step.

- In view of the above fact, there are now legal implications and accounting complexities. They are paid employees, so, do you have to pay social security taxes? do you have to pay minimum wage? Are you going to give them a 401k or 403b retirement plan? Are they going to get agents and demand more money? Are they going to form unions?

- Finally, you pay the profit-generating football team, now you'll CERTAINLY have to pay the players on the girls' field hockey, volleyball, softball, netball, tennis, badminton, croquet, and curling teams. You'll have to pay every athlete in the school, and all the other sports LOSE money. Suddenly you have a massive payroll and sports ain't so profitable anymore. I can see why universities don't want to even THINK about going there.

Answer 6

They do get paid, they're called scholarships. Of course the univ. has to make money off these athletes. How can they afford top of the line football facilities, practice fields, etc. for their players. Top players go to top schools for a reason, look at Boise State. After this years championship, you don't think they'll bring in stronger recruit when they can show them how nice their football facilities are.

Answer 7

I totally agree with you. It's hypocritical that NCAA is trying to crack down on stuff like what happened w/Reggie Bush yet the schools marketing gets them millions to over-pay coaches & professors or waste in some other way