They also get perks and bonuses that they enjoy - especially when their team has a winning season.
They also get perks and bonuses that they enjoy - especially when their team has a winning season.Because of that, they bring in a lot of money for themselves and the university where they teach (Nocera, 2011).Many people want to attend college, but not all of them can afford to do so.
Some of them even leave college to pursue professional athletic dreams before they have finished their degrees.
They do not see the point of continuing with a degree when they are able to receive hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars per year by playing their sport professionally.
College athletes have never been paid in the way that professional athletes have, so determining whether paying them is good or bad is mostly conjecture and opinion.
This is important to note, but it does not negate the validity of the arguments regarding this very important issue.
Being paid for that is important, just like being paid for any other job.
The Argument for Not Paying Athletes The history of college athletics does not allow for them to be paid, and why should history be changed at this point?
They, in exchange for playing a game they are good at and that they enjoy, are provided with a college education.
Getting a college education is a privilege, not a right.
In other words, that ,000 stipend was believed to be something that would help to cover the cost of tuition and other fees for those students - not something that was used to actually "pay" them.
Still, many colleges (and athletes and the parents of those athletes) believe that college athletics is less of a sport and more of a money-making endeavor for the college (Eassom, 1994; Hill, 2007).