Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why are college players not allowed to make money from what they do?

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
College football makes millions of dollars for universities. In the case of Ohio State, it's basically the main faucet of money for the University. Their science department doesn't make money, it benefits from college football. And yet players are punished when they sell their own jersies for some money on the side?

What really surprises me though is how sports fans think this is okay, that the college players have to wait until they reach the pros, then they make so much money it justifies them being unable to make money in college. Even though most do not make it to the pros.

So why is it that universities can make millions off of players and the players can not make anything for themselves? We know they aren't really getting an education so saying tuition is paid for is not really saying much.




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


The tuition being paid for is a valid argument, but I wouldn't mind if the players made money, if half their earnings went to students who are keeping their GPA up and having a tough time financally. There are not a lot of College sports stars who are there for a education after all, and they are attending free of charge.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
You briefly said science in college...
If ever a student makes an important discovery, usually the university get 99% of the credit.

Universities abuse of the talents of young people for their own pockets and it's not like we have much choice, a lot of places just won't give you a chance without the degree. We all know university sport players get advantageous grades to keep them in the team.

You have much better chances of getting a degree by being a stupid but talented sports player then being a controversial genius.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Yeah I saw the recent episode of South Park as well.
That is what stems this, right?
But still the same it is a valid point, the colleges make a mint off the backs of these young fools.
edit on 1-6-2011 by g146541 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Well, tuition. If they recruit you, your basically on a scholarship. Lets take my favorite school for example, Miami. It costs roughly 40,000 a year in tuition to go there off scholarship. How many players get a full ride? And these players are "encouraged" to do well in school. So the operating costs of the school (student costs) are still there, if not more due to the coaching and whatnot for a athlete.

So do i think the schools should be dishing out endorsements for being a well recognized player? Nah, but I would think they could pay all players a base pay dependent on location in depth chart. First string players get 200 a week in practice and in season, with a required 20 hours devoted to football. Second string required 15 hours, $150. Now extrapolate that down to the rest of the team, no overtime pay either. Overtime in this case, is a personal choice. If you are a second string, there is probably a reason. If you choose not to take the extra time to work on that issue, then you are only limiting your growth and delaying your potential spot on the first string.

Some of you may be thinking this wont work, and it may not. However, it is my belief that college ball isn't about individualism, or commercialism. Its about a love for the game. A love for the game so strong, it is your life. Applying a base pay rate of $10 may add up to be too great a cost (i doubt it), but for those first stringers who spend roughly 15-20 hours a week in football related study, conditioning, training, ect. It doesn't leave much time for a traditional job, which in turn, doesn't help financial situations.

- Derst
Ps. any and all numbers were quickly thrown out there without much research. Focus not on the details but rather the concept of the writing. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I think its because college players are supposed to be amateurs. If they got paid that would make them pro's, atleast I belive thats the logic behind it.

Besides most colleges get state and or federal aid, people would be pissed if there tax money was paying for college sports stars salaries.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by derst1988
 


Colleges may charge 40,000 for tuition but it doesn't cost them this much. It probably costs more to feed the football players than it does to pay the teachers.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by derst1988
 


Colleges may charge 40,000 for tuition but it doesn't cost them this much. It probably costs more to feed the football players than it does to pay the teachers.


I kinda doubt that. A college professor makes on average $81,491. With more than 75% making more than $61,780. I think that attributes more cost than the food for the players. The school is a business and does have operating costs. Are they making money? Of course, they need to. Could they help the players out with weekly spending money? Most likely.

source



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   


Why are college players not allowed to make money from what they do?


Hmmm, I don't know.

They still get the money. Only the really stupid get caught. Might as well get it above board. No need to keep up the charade that they're students. Of course anyone who wants an education could get one.

I'd still watch college football and March Madness.






top topics



 
1

log in

join