A emerging tendency in school sports funding is to charge student athletes and their families a portion of the program's costs. This practice of collecting money for sports participation is usually referred to as "pay to play" (22, 23). The method through which the decision to impose fees is made differs. In some cases, students are charged as they enter high school. In other cases, they have the option to pay either directly or by checking off a box on a form submitted to their schools. No matter how they choose to pay, they are then assigned a number on a priority list for spot openings in sports teams.
The first study of this issue was conducted by Richard M. Miller and David L. Rothman in 1989 (24). Using data from the National High School Sports Report, they found that charging money for sports participation was common but varied across sports. A majority of the studies investigated whether such charges affected who participated in sports -- that is, did they deter low-income or minority students -- with most finding no evidence of this.
More recently, another study was conducted by Andrew Zimbalist at Harvard University. His work has been cited by many who have followed this topic since its inception, including former NBA player John Salley. In his study, published in 2009 (25), Salley concluded that "charge[d]...participation [is] important for ensuring that all children have equal opportunities to participate in athletics."
Fees also encourage pupils to place a higher importance on playing. Sports are significant. They educate children on the importance of leadership and teamwork. If schools collect fees, they should not be limited to sports only. They can be used for general school activities.
Schools that cannot afford to charge fees may still be able to raise funds by having advertisements placed in the local press or by selling tickets to events such as athletic contests or performances.
In conclusion, students should be allowed to participate in sports without paying fees.
According to poll responses, the average charge was $93, while 21% of youngsters faced a pay-to-play fee of $150 or more. Pay-to-play fees, on the other hand, are merely one component of the school sports expenditures reported by parents. The majority of families said they contributed money themselves to help with costs such as tuition, fees, and equipment. Some also mentioned receiving assistance from their schools or participation organizations.
The actual amount that schools charge for athletic activities varies depending on many factors. It can range from free opportunities for most children to enjoy physical activity through paying charges for some sports.
Schools can impose different fees for athletes and non-athletes. Non-athletes may be charged altogether different prices for different sports. For example, some schools may charge lower fees for baseball and basketball because these are considered "less expensive" sports. Others may have separate fees for each sport and level of competition. For instance, some schools may charge low fees for elementary students but higher ones for middle school and high school players.
The amounts charged for athletic activities at private schools tend to be higher than those at public institutions. This makes sense since private schools have greater flexibility in setting their fees. They can choose what price point they want to target (i.e., low, medium, or high).
This is the essence of the game in college, and doing it for any other motive, such as money, crushes the hopes of those who aspire to the same position. There is no equitable method to distribute funding to student athletes. When it comes to compensating collegiate players, there are two schools of thought. One believes that they should be paid because they contribute to their universities by promoting school spirit and attracting fans. The other view points out that they are students first and professionals second, so paying them would be an unfair advantage. Whether you agree with this argument or not, it's hard to deny that student athletes are important factors in generating revenue that allow their universities to fund other programs and activities.
The total amount that colleges and universities receive in federal funding is fairly fixed each year. So if a university wants to increase its income, it needs to find another way to do it. One option is to have more profitable sports teams. Another is to offer additional services to raise more money from private sources. Yet another is to use some of its funds for student athletes. This is possible because under the current system, schools can use competitive equity as a reason to provide less-than-equal treatment to certain groups of students. For example, a university can decide that student athletes are worth less than full scholarship status by giving them only partial scholarships or making them play multiple positions on the field or court.
"Paying certain athletes but not others is neither lawful nor moral." And, because most collegiate sports programs are already sponsored by general university monies, there simply isn't enough money to compensate every player in every sport.
The old argument that paying players would destroy the "amateur" nature of college sports is also invalid. The NCAA's own bylaws state that no student-athlete can receive any type of financial benefit from his or her school, with limited exceptions. Thus, an athlete could never be paid for playing a game - amateur or professional - because any payment would be considered illegal incentive compensation.
The only way the NCAA could feasibly pay players would be through private donations or institutional funds. However, even if such resources were available, it would not be legal to do so.
In conclusion, the NCAA cannot pay players because it is prohibited by law from giving any student-athletes any form of monetary incentive.
Paying them encourages them to play more and perform better. This is also a means of pushing them to pursue careers as professional athletes. The NCAA now claims that less than 2% of college players and up are professional players. However, research has shown that if you can get a college player for even $500,000 then he or she will likely go pro.
The more money that comes into schools through advertising, ticket sales, and merchandise purchases, the more they have to pay their players. If colleges don't pay players, the only people who would be interested in buying their products are other businesses, which would cut into their revenue stream.
Here is how much some top college football players are being paid:
Kellen Kelly-Lane - $1 million over four years (2014-2017) LaDainian Tomlinson - $5 million over five years (2007-2011)
Olivier Vernon - $7.5 million over six years (2013-2018) DeMarcus Cousins - $10 million over five years (2012-2017)
Paul George - $12.9 million over five years (2009-2013) Kevin Durant - $13.5 million over two years (2004-2006)
Copyright © 2020 - 2023 Sportsmanist Inc.
