Across the world, college sports are growing and still providing significant financial incentives to schools, universities, and even partners. This has led to a lot of discussion about athlete compensation. Some people believe student-athletes received a college scholarship, while others say they can leave college early to focus on athletics. The articles discuss the pros and cons of the topic as well as some thoughts. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In my article, I would like to talk about how the NCAA signed a law that states that all student-athletes will be paid to play in the new Fair Pay to Play Act. Paying to play is a problem because it will have very negative effects in California for student-athletes and universities at large. How will other universities also proceed to remunerate their athletes? Will getting paid now make athletes more motivated to be exposed to money and fame too young or does it make them more motivated to play and be known. This is a very interesting topic because if UCLA starts paying athletes, other universities will have to follow suit and pay as well if they want recruits. This topic intrigues me because as a student-athlete, I am looking to make money. In 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was founded. They formed as the Intercollegiate Athletic Association upon the organization's founding and did not adopt their current name until 1910. Their duty, when established in 1906, was to create rules of play and eligibility for American football, otherwise football would be stopped because it was considered unsafe for a game. The NCAA today functions as a general legislative and administrative authority for men's and women's intercollegiate athletics and is in the process of to become a multi-million dollar organization. The principle of professionalism was considered crucial to the association during the creation of the NCAA. For their respective sports, the NCAA requires all student-athletes to be amateurs. Professionals may be paid for their sporting competitions, registered with a private agency or body, or use their sporting skills to earn money in any way, leading to obvious differences between the student-athlete and the employer. The NCAA's greatest similarity from its origins to the present day is its importance in amateurism. Last year, the NCAA went to court to preserve its amateurism rules against petitioners who believed the value of a scholarship violated federal antitrust laws. The NCAA also expanded its values, which would help pay to play by changing amateurism and professionalism laws. In the LA Times article they state: "The new law gives athletes the right to hire an agent and make money off their 'name, image and likeness,' just like professionals do." Denying this right is disingenuous, to say the least, in the 21st century. “Amateurism” today is just a label slapped on a system in which players in revenue-generating college sports work 50 to 60 hours a week in exchange for an education they rarely have time to get. pursue. The text I'm looking at is a newspaper from the Los Angeles Times, which describes what's happening with thepay to play. It may be interesting to interpret how much they get paid versus how long they can play. College freshman recruiting is going to have to change now that they're starting to pay their athletes. California law claims that less money will go to the school because booster donations will decrease and support for individuals will increase instead. The smallest thing the NCAA could do for those who give so much money to the NCAA and its school would be to pay them minimum wage. This deal is unbeatable because teams with central players will want to get paid, so they will leave a team to go where they can play to get paid. It can change the way we view sports at a young age, because when I was younger I never thought I could become a professional. But now that they can get paid in college, kids can now try harder in high school because it allows them to look forward to college instead of dropping out and trying to find a secondary job. This is a controversial topic because what happens if they get paid too much, what happens to the NFL? Additionally, will college ticket prices also increase, by how much and how will this affect D2 and D3? I think it's fair that colleges pay to play in this century because these days student-athletes can be overwhelmed by the experience of college life simply because they have to get used to balancing classes, practices or games, and that a job can be quite difficult for most. students. Therefore, I would like to get paid to play in college so I don't have to overload my schedule. Colleges around the world are going to have to change the way they recruit their new players if they want them to be on their teams starting in 2023. As a multi-million dollar company, it's now everyone except the students -athletes. essential to the community have benefited from amateurism. Historically, the NCAA has considered the "amateur" principle necessary to make college athletics competitive and famous. Additionally, the NCAA would not function without student-athletes, which begs the question of why student-athletes are not viewed the same way. The suggestion that the NCAA pays for its college athletes has sparked much debate recently. The ongoing debate over whether to pay student-athletes has had a very negative impact on the NCAA. Universities and coaches have gone behind the NCAA's back to convince players to participate in their programs because of the need for student-athletes to retain their amateur titles. This is why shoemakers try to persuade AAU (Amateur Athletic Union) players to attend the schools they support. This has contributed to the firing of players and coaches, leading to prison sentences and much more. For example, the FBI "investigated ongoing corruption in college basketball at the University of Arizona this past season." They found records of a coach paying $10,000 a month for a university to play. The assistant basketball coach was sentenced to three months in prison and two years of supervised release after an extensive investigation. This is because schools are not allowed to pay their players when most perceive it as more than justifiable. CBS says, “The NCAA has also lost interest from many high-level high school opportunities who have decided to take other paths because of this debate..