# data[].attributes.body
The NCAA brings in $18.9 billion a year.for college athletes to not get any of that is very unfair. There would be no NCAA without these athletes.They done even pay them it should be illegal. It's the same as not paying someone who works at a store for the company to just make a profit on basically free labor.

# data[].attributes.headline
why college athletes should not be paid 

# data[].attributes.subject
why college athletes should not be paid 

# data[].attributes.body
college athletes can get good scholarships and full rides if they are good enough. the university has to pay. The medical and travel expenses, free gear, top-notch coaching, unlimited use of elite athletic facilities and a national stage to audition for a job in the professional ranks. all of that is paid by the university that the athlete chooses to attend.  It costs $57,180 to attend Duke University. so with a scholarship the university loses a lot of potential money.Also you get great education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
Over 20 years ago, the rise of the Fab Five basketball team at the University of Michigan helped spark what is now one of the most debated topics in all of sports.

Should college athletes get a piece of the $871.6 million pie the NCAA brings in annually?

The answer is simple: No, absolutely not.

College athletes are already being paid with an athletic scholarship that is worth between $20-$50,000 per year.

Oh, and that does not even begin to factor in the medical and travel expenses, free gear, top-notch coaching, unlimited use of elite athletic facilities and a national stage to audition for a job in the professional ranks.

All of those perks are paid for in full by the universities these athletes choose to attend.

Before attempting to discredit some of the cases for compensating players at the college level, let's take into account all of the things they already receive cost-free.

Athletic scholarships cover just about everything a student-athlete needs to survive for four years at a major university. Campus housing, daily medical care and free meals via training table are all included. Tuition and books are covered as well.

None of those things are cheap. It costs $57,180 to attend Duke University. The University of Texas charges $35,776 for out-of-state enrollees. Even Butler University charges $31,496 per year.

Leaving a four-year college with a degree will help former players earn more money than those who only have a high school diploma, regardless of whether or not they move on to a professional sports career.

Traveling around the world is another privilege these student-athletes are afforded.

Some people scrolling through this article can only dream of being able to visit any of those locations.

Each and every athlete will leave their university free of debt. I'm willing to bet some of you reading this are still paying off college loans, or took quite a while to do so.

Heck, I have racked up over $80,000 in tuition fees over the past four years in college. I work in an athletic department to help pay off my debts. Athletes pay theirs off by going to practice and performing in games.

Even still, there are several arguments people come up with for why college athletes deserve a paycheck on top of the numerous benefits they are already being given.
The Fair Market Value Argument
This is one of the more common stances pay-for-play supporters take. The idea that players are not being paid their " fair market value," however, is a complete myth.

The two sports impacted by this argument the most are football and basketball, because their revenue funds just about every other varsity team at most universities.

These athletes have to be worth millions, right? Wrong. College athletes are not worth a single cent on the open market, at least until they are eligible for the NBA or NFL draft.

Changes to the NBA draft eligibility requirements brought an end to high school athletes heading straight to the professional ranks. Now, NBA hopefuls must be one year removed from high school to enter the draft.

Every student-athlete knows they cannot get paid in college, but if they do not like it there are other options.

The Compton, CA product was drafted 10th by the Milwaukee Bucks after playing one season overseas.

Much like the foreign basketball associations, the Canadian Football League does not have an age requirement. High school graduates wishing to play pro football can head north and sign a contract right away.

Instead of choosing this route, though, NFL and NBA hopefuls take their talents to the NCAA. The media exposure, coaching and training provided by the universities is far better than the athletes will receive in foreign markets. Going to classes is simply the tradeoff for reaping these benefits.

In my opinion, if an athlete is talented enough, professional scouts will draft them whenever they become eligible. I am truly surprised most of the top high school athletes do not choose to play overseas. I mean, they feel they are good enough to be paid, right? Go prove it.
Paying College Athletes Will Eliminate Scandals
Paying players will not eliminate any of the greed or determination to win at all costs that exists in today's society. Cheating will never stop, and it existed at the NCAA level well before the era of modern technology.

Henry Beach Needham outlined some fairly alarming issues college athletics faced in its early years in a 1905 piece titled " The College Athlete", which was published in McLure's Magazine. The biggest scandal at the time was Columbia University paying non-students to compete.

Scandals are nothing new to the NCAA, and paying players will not purify these dirty waters.

I hate seeing these improper benefits scandals as much as the next person, but if we are being honest, the history proves there will always be some form of cheating going on. Paying athletes is not going to provide a solution for these problems.
The NCAA Has More Than Enough Money to Pay Players
Although the NCAA reels in over $800 million per year, 81 percent of which comes from television and marketing-rights fees, the organization continues to be non-profit.

How is this possible? An astounding 96 percent of the revenue the NCAA brings in annually is redistributed to its members' institutions.

This is done through donations to academic enhancement, conference grants, sports sponsorships, student assistance funds and grants-in-aid. A percentage of the revenue is also added to the basketball fund, which is divided up and distributed to the NCAA tournament field on a yearly basis.

The universities themselves are not exactly rolling in wads of cash, either. Last year, only 22 athletic departments were profitable. Football and basketball bring in the dough, and every other college sport survives as a result.

Remember this year's Cinderella story in March Madness, the Florida Gulf Coast Eagles? The university nearly lost money as a result of their run to the Sweet 16.

Two years ago, the Division I Board of Directors approved a $2,000 stipend for college athletes to cover the " full cost of attendance." Less than two months later, the NCAA's member institutions repealed the stipend, because they could not afford it.

College athletics may sound like a great business, but in reality only the top-tier programs are churning out a profit.

I do not agree with everything the NCAA does. However, the evidence shows it is not the booming business everyone thinks it is.
Is There Any Common Ground?
The pay-for-play debate will have its day in federal court in July 2014, thanks to a class-action lawsuit filed by former UCLA Bruins basketball star Ed O'Bannon.

Change may very well be on the horizon for how college athletes' likenesses can be marketed and distributed. The lawsuit is seeking a "50-50 split for telecasts and a one-third split for video games."

Despite the fact that I completely disagree with paying student-athletes, O'Bannon's case does make an outstanding point. There is no reason why EA Sports should be able to make an NCAA football or basketball game, replicate the players in every way except for their names and not pay them any money.

Television rights are a bit tricky, since the NCAA does not have a players' union. The universities would be able to make these lucrative telecast contracts no matter who comes in or out of the program for the next several years, because of how well established the conferences are.

If college athletes do wind up receiving money from the O'Bannon lawsuit, I think it should only be distributed to players who actually graduate. This is still college sports after all.

Such an incentive would help the NCAA in its goal to improve the Academic Progress Rate for all member institutions.

In addition, "full cost of attendance" should be covered for those who can actually prove it is a necessity. Not every college athlete comes from a poor home, but the ones who do deserve a need-based stipend.

To regulate this, the NCAA will have to establish which players qualify based on their family's income. If the player's family falls below whatever dollar amount the NCAA decides on, give them the $2,000 stipend.

O'Bannon's lawsuit will bring change to college sports, for better or worse.

For the time being, though, student-athletes are already receiving plenty of compensation from their respective universities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
There's No Crying in College: The Case Against Paying College Athletes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over 20 years ago, the rise of the Fab Five basketball team at the University of Michigan helped spark what is now one of the most debated topics in all of sports. Should college athletes get a piece of the $871...

# data[].attributes.headline
why collage athletes shouldn't get paid 1

# data[].attributes.subject
why collage athletes shouldn't get paid 1

# data[].attributes.body
If there is no investor who voluntarily wants to help his local team, a college will be a financial institution. It means that the tuition will be raised in cost, and books will become more expensive. Hence, students who cannot afford the present tuition fees will face the need to discontinue their education just to help athletes get money.And this could hurt the collage because less people would commit. If it's overpriced they will go to a community college or something cheaper instead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why College Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid Opinion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Student-athletes and money matters are two irreconcilable differences that are always surrounded by arguments and debates. Some sports experts believe that top prospects should be paid since they are the future of the sport. While representatives of educational establishments believe it would not be fair to pay them, while other students get no monetary benefits. Let’s overlook the most sound cons of providing compensation to college athletes. You should try BetWinner.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why College Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid Opinion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Student-athletes and money matters are two irreconcilable differences that are always surrounded by arguments and debates. Some sports experts believe that top prospects should be paid since they are the future of the sport. While representatives of educational establishments believe it would not be fair to pay them, while other students get no monetary benefits. Let’s overlook the most sound cons of providing compensation to college athletes. You should try BetWinner.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Alexandra Laurence | LTVN Reporter/Anchor

Although a university paying its student-athletes may sound good in theory, it logistically could cause challenges and difficulties.

No. 1 reason: Student athletes already get a yearly stipend with their scholarships.

Student athletes on scholarship receive yearly stipends to ensure all their expenses are covered. These stipends can vary from school to school, but they usually range from a few hundred dollars to a couple thousand dollars, depending on the location of the school. The stipend is intended to cover the cost of living, including rent and meals not provided by the university. If student-athletes are good stewards of these funds, they could save thousands of dollars by the time they finish college.

No. 2 reason: Student-athletes are provided with multiple types of resources to help them be successful.

In addition to receiving a yearly stipend, student-athletes have their tuition and fees paid for through scholarships for free textbooks and other academic needs. The student-athletes are provided with a high level of resources to make sure they are set up for success inside the classroom while managing their sports' demanding schedules.

No. 3 reason: Student-athletes are set up for success after college, with the potential to make big dollars.

Being a student-athlete means you have developed a work ethic that is very valuable to future employers. Student-athletes have a platform that can be used as an advantage over other job candidates due to their networking opportunities. If student-athletes network at college the right way, they can use that to their benefit in job searches.

No. 4 reason: Other sports could get cut.

If a university starts paying student-athletes, it could negatively affect other sports programs. There would not be enough funds to pay every single student-athlete equally and to be able to keep every single sport. The smaller sports that do not generate enough revenue to sustain the program would definitely get cut. The schools would have to address Title IX issues for equality, which could mean the cutting of athletic programs that may generate revenue but are not Title IX compliant. This would further limit opportunities for future student-athletes. Other areas of an athletic program could be negatively impacted, such as employees taking a pay cut or the maintenance people being laid off. It's a domino effect. Colleges are not swimming in money. This would affect more than just the student-athletes. The athletic department could possibly crumble, and the smaller sports would be no more.

No. 5 reason: Where do you draw the line?

In high school, schools make money off of athletes and games too. Does that mean that high school athletes should also be paid? Does that mean college athletes could be considered professionals instead of amateurs? The hypothetical situations could go on forever. This creates a lot of grey area and room to possibly push the boundaries.

No. 6 reason: Big schools will get bigger, and small schools will get smaller.

It is no secret that the big public powerhouse schools have some very generous, high-profile donors, but what about the small schools with a fraction of the donors? Recruiting would not exist anymore. This would lead to big schools becoming powerhouses, as many donors and recruits would only want to go to those schools because they would be paid significantly more money. As a result, the smaller Division II schools could disappear simply because they cannot compete with the amount of money that bigger Division I schools have.

Student-athletes are not employees of their university, and it would be foolish to treat them like they are.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student-athletes shouldn't be paid by their universities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Alexandra Laurence | LTVN Reporter/Anchor Although a university paying its student-athletes may sound good in theory, it logistically could cause challenges and difficulties. No. 1 reason: Student athletes already get a yearly stipend with their scholarships. Student athletes on scholarship receive yearly stipends to ensure all their expenses are covered.

# data[].attributes.headline
college athletes should get paid at D1 level because.coaches can make millions but the athletes can make none and still have to pay for collage.The winning coaches check check for Orgeron would make his bonus payout $1.7 million. Just this year on top of his $4 million base salary.and the college makes even more money with seating.The lsu tigers coach makes 9 million dollars annual salary.

# data[].attributes.subject
college athletes should get paid at D1 level because.coaches can make millions but the athletes can make none and still have to pay for collage.The winning coaches check check for Orgeron would make his bonus payout $1.7 million. Just this year on top of his $4 million base salary.and the college makes even more money with seating.The lsu tigers coach makes 9 million dollars annual salary.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No matter which team of Tigers wins Monday night's College Football Playoff Championship game, the coaches of both LSU and Clemson are cashing in big on the title runs.

Both LSU Coach Ed Orgeron and Clemson Coach Dabo Swinney have already benefitted from performance bonuses baked into their contracts. Whoever comes out on top in Monday's title game will take home even more.

Swinney, whose Clemson Tigers were national champions last year, would get a $250,000 bonus from a Clemson win. An LSU win would net Orgeron an extra $500,000.

The winner's check for Orgeron would make his bonus payout $1.7 million just this year, on top of his $4 million base salary.
See Also: NCAA Will Let College Athletes Profit Off Their Name, Likeness Big Wins, Big Money
Orgeron, who is in his third full season at LSU, earned incremental bonuses for the number of wins the 14-0 Tigers claimed this year, the Southeastern Conference title, the CFP semifinals, a bowl appearance, a spot in the championship game, and for his having been named both SEC and AP National Coach of the Year.

For Swinney, the extra quarter million-dollar payout for a championship would come on top of the $150,000 bonus he collected for winning the Atlantic Coast Conference and $250,000 just for getting the Tigers to the championship game, giving him a potential post-season bonus payout of $650,000 on top of his record-setting $9.2 million base pay. Swinney did miss out on one bonus - a $50,000 check he would have collected if he, instead of Orgeron, had been named Coach of the Year.

Swinney's contract is a 10-year, $93 million deal.

The coaching staffs at the two schools also are in for performance bonuses for the undefeated seasons, conference championships and making it to the national title game.

Under NCAA rules, of course, the players aren't paid anything extra, because they can't be paid.
Photo credit: LambeauLeap80, Wikimedia
0
See more from Benzinga © 2020 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's How Much Money LSU's Ed Orgeron And Clemson's Dabo Swinney Won

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No matter which team of Tigers wins Monday night's College Football Playoff Championship game, the coaches of both LSU and Clemson are cashing in big on the title runs. Both LSU Coach Ed Orgeron and Clemson Coach Dabo Swinney have already benefitted from performance bonuses baked into their contracts.

# data[].attributes.body
Being a college athlete is hard. Its a lot of commitment Athletes say its like a full time job. With practice workouts and games.A 2006 ncaa study found that top tier athletes can spend up to 37 hours a week on there sports.That's a big time commitment.To spend 37 hours a week and not get paid anything isn't fair.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The thing is, colleges don't just make a huge amount of money on sports-they also spend a huge amount. Stadiums are not cheap. Neither are the equipment and team travel, not to mention coaches' salaries and scholarships for student athletes. According to a 2014 NCAA study, only 24 of the top 129 college football programs make a profit.

Some say that forcing schools to pay athletes could do more harm than good. If players were paid, many schools might not be able to afford to keep their athletic programs running. They'd certainly have less money for sports like swimming, cross-country, gymnastics, and soccer-sports that don't bring in the kind of money that football and basketball do. Why should the students who play these sports have to suffer for the benefit of a few?

Then again, top coaches make millions. Is it fair for them to make so much while the athletes themselves get nothing?

After all, being a college athlete can be like working a full-time job while also going to school: A 2006 NCAA study found that top-tier college athletes dedicate an average of 37 hours per week to their sport.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The thing is, colleges don't just make a huge amount of money on sports-they also spend a huge amount. Stadiums are not cheap. Neither are the equipment and team travel, not to mention coaches' salaries and scholarships for student athletes. According to a 2014 NCAA study, only 24 of the top 129 college football programs make a profit.