For the Love of the Game
NCAA Division I athletics have brought in a lot of revenue to their mother Universities for many years. Fueled by many endorsements ranging from television contracts to clothing deals, colleges have accumulated enough money to be recognized as a real market economy. Despite the positivity generated by these sporting events, there still lies much controversy. Based on the amount of income received by the schools, many argue about whether or not student-athletes should be paid for their contributions. In the wake of this argument lie a lot of stakeholders that could be majorly affected by this decision, such as the NCAA, the universities, and the players themselves.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association, or NCAA, was founded in 1906 in an attempt to regulate college sports as well as to protect young athletes from the dangerous and exploitive nature of that time period (“NCAA History”). In the early years of collegiate sports, there was an intense competition between schools. There were many student groups and alumni clubs that would organize to hire athletically gifted high school students to go to their desired school (“NCAA History”). Such groups still cause problems today, and are the primary focus for extermination by the NCAA. Recently, the NCAA has received a lot scrutiny from fans and players alike on whether student-athletes should be paid or not. The stakes on whether or not the regulation of a payroll for student-athletes is high and could result in an utter failure of the system (Johnson). First off, there are many problems that come with payment and transactions. Paying college athletes would exponentially increase the need for a demand in NCAA oversight, which is an enormous task by all accounts (Johnson). Secondly, the ability for universities to pay their players would result in unorganized leagues, ruled by schools with “big money.” This would destroy the goal and overall integrity of the NCAA and...