Should University of Alabama football players be paid to play? According to the NCAA or National Collegiate Athletic Association, the answer to this question is no. Over the past decade this has been a hot topic in sports and a lot of controversy has arisen from the topic. Many people believe this is unfair due to the amount of work required to play college football. From practicing on the field to studying their next opponent in a film session, these athletes put in long hours of work and bring significant revenue to the school they play for. There are many college football fans who believe that not paying athletes is unfair due to the amount of effort and time it takes to play college football at a high level. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay There are many arguments as to why major league football players deserve to be paid. But one thing both sides can agree on is that players need to be treated fairly, regardless of whether you think it's fair to pay them or not. According to Tony Tsoukalas of the Crimson White News newspaper "The University of Alabama made a profit of 40,766,391 during the 2010 season" (Tsoukalas). With such large profits it is hard to believe that the most important part of the team, i.e. the players, do not see a penny. It seems reasonable that people would be in favor of paying athletes with revenues like this. At many large schools like Alabama football is the primary sport, Tony goes on to say, "The university's football program made a profit of $40,766,391 in 2010 while all other UA sports combined lost $7,875,289” (Tsoukalas). This statistic shows how important football players are to a major university like Alabama. Another reason why people believe that these athletes should be paid is the simple fact that playing football takes a lot of time and effort. In any other job, if someone put in as much effort as a Crimson Tide player, they would undoubtedly get paid. Players simply see football as a job, they have a tight schedule and have to work hard in everything they do. Many of the players on the University of Alabama football team come from poverty, and football is one of the only options for earning a significant amount of money and an education. According to Wayne Flynt “In the 2000 US census, for example, Alabama was the seventh poorest state, with 16% of its residents living in poverty, compared to a US average of 12%. The state also included eight of the nation's 100 poorest counties.” (Flynt). While scholarships are awarded to many athletes, they do not cover many expenses related to college enrollment. Paying athletes would ease the burden on families to financially support them in college. Such as groceries, gas for the car and other common household items. It's not hard to see why some would be in favor of paying University of Alabama football players. Their blood sweat and sometimes tears help the program win games, and that winning tradition translates into money. According to Tommy Deas of timesports.com "The University of Alabama head coach will accrue compensation of $6,087,349 for 2010, making him not only the highest-paid coach in college football, but also one of the highest-paid coaches in the 'whole sport' (Deas ). While the Crimson Tide coach earns a record salary, the playersthey struggle to live comfortably. The fact is that players do just as much, if not more, work than the coach in a football season. So why is it right that the team coach earns millions and the players earn nothing? Many of those in favor of paying athletes ask the same question. The arguments in favor of paying football players at the University of Alabama are very strong and make so much sense, for some people it is difficult to understand why this would be a bad idea. Both sides of this argument have strong arguments behind them and this is why it is still being debated. While the argument for paying athletes has many positive points, there are underlying issues that are not being addressed by advocates for paying Alabama football players. One point not addressed is how much will players be paid? This issue has not yet been resolved. How much players' time is worth and is everyone's time the same is another question you need to ask yourself. For example, one of the favorites in the race for the Heisman Trophy, which is an award given to the nation's best college football player, is Trent Richardson. Trent is the starting running back for the Tide and perhaps the best running back in the nation. Would it be fair to pay him more than a third lineman? I think not. This is because every player on the team has to train for the same amount of time. But in the same situation it would also be unfair to pay him the same amount considering he is a star and brings more revenue to the university than many players on the team. So if it's unfair to pay athletes the same amount and it's also unfair to pay them different amounts, paying them at all makes no sense. I understand and feel sorry for the disadvantaged families who have to support the financial needs of these players in college. Having said that I believe there must be a compromise between paying athletes and not paying athletes. The argument that the players earn money for the university and the university then owes the players a debt is a good one but has flaws. At many schools across the nation, none of the athletic teams, including the football team, make any money during the season. This is due to the high cost of running the team, from uniforms to travel to paying the coaching staff. Sports don't come cheap in college. Furthermore, much of the revenue comes not from players but from television contracts that ensure that only certain channels cover certain teams. For example, the University of Alabama has a contract with CBS along with the entire Southeastern Conference team. This means that no other channel can broadcast SEC games and believe me, this contract is very profitable for all the universities involved. Every university across the country earns and spends different amounts of money. Some schools have a lot of money and some schools don't, this is also a problem when paying college athletes. If a school like Boise Sates competes with a school like Alabama in terms of money it's not fair. It stands to reason that a school like Alabama would be able to pay recruits more money than Boise State could. This leads to a disadvantage for schools that don't have big money to recruit: why should a player go to one school if another will be able to pay him ten times more? They wouldn't. This could lead to a lack of composition in college football, where schools like Alabama and USC would dominate every year simply because of the money they could pay their athletes. This would not be good for the sport because every team is supposed to be on a level playing field when it comes to recruiting. Please note: this is just an example. Get a document now.