The first college athletic event occurred in the year 1852 in Lake Winnipesaukee, New Hampshire (Lewis, 224). Harvard University and Yale University met up to compete in a rowing competition, and made history by starting a huge money generating event in college athletics that now a days generates millions of dollars in revenue for many universities. From multi-million dollar TV contracts, to millions of dollars earned in ticket/merchandise revenue, college athletics has become a huge money making business that affects most American families. It has gotten so big that almost every person is a stakeholder in college athletics. Most people who go to college have attended at least one collegiate event where the presence there has resulted in lots of money for colleges. Those people who did go to a college sporting event, the average fan paid for their ticket, paid for parking, paid for team apparel that they wear when they attend, and also purchased food and drinks at the concessions. When some football stadiums hold 80,000 plus seats and thousands of people tailgate right outside the stadium that money starts to add up quickly. Even if people are just sitting at home watching the game, they are still helping the game get a better TV rating by watching the game. And the more viewers there are, the more expensive the commercial ads will be which ultimately equals more money for the university. But one issue that has been brought up a lot recently, is that the colleges get all of the profits generated by the student athletes when the athletes themselves are not allowed to receive a dollar in return for their performances on the field. Athletes also aren't even allowed to make money off of their own memorabilia such as autographed balls that the athletes sign. With the large amounts of money that some teams bring in for the school, a lot of people make an argument that the athletes should get a cash reward since they are the ones actually participating in the sport. Those people believe it is unfair to the athletes to prevent them from receiving a salary and think that it is of bad value. But people who are against college athlete compensation argue that student athletes do get several benefits such as scholarships, easier GPA/SAT requirements to get accepted, unlimited meal plan, among other things. Where people start to part ways and start arguing is the value of whether paying college athletes is the ultimate best solution for all the stakeholders that are invested in college athletics. There is no perfect solution for paying college athletes, but basically what the two sides' debate is which solution is the least controversial.

People who are for athlete compensation believers feel that not paying college athletes is the wrong thing to do and that the NCAA and the universities are practically robbing the college athletes that are responsible for the revenue brought in. There have recently been highly lucrative TV deals including college basketball and football that are worth in the tens of billions of dollars. Many feel that the NCAA and the universities are robbing the college athletes out of money for their on-field performances. Players like AJ McCarron are the main supporters behind athlete compensation: Fox Sports reporter Teddy Mitrosilis quoted McCarron saying, "I truly believe, during some point in the future, college athletes should be paid... but in some way they're taking advantage of college athletes that sign their name into a certain school." (Mitrosilis). McCarron goes on to say how the year his Alabama Crimson Tide football team beat Notre Dame in the BCS National Championship game, the total revenue for Alabama was around $92 million. It is in McCarron's and many people's eyes that it was mainly the players' efforts and contributions that generated that staggering $92 million for the university. Sure there are coaches and other people such as trainers, equipment managers etc. that are involved in generating that much money, but McCarron argues that is the players that are the ones that are performing and causing people to pay money to watch them compete, so in theory they should get some compensation.

Tyson Hartnett, an entrepreneur and sports writer of the "Huffington Post" proposes an idea to give back to the college athletes. "If each athlete got $2,000 paid over the course of the semester, this would give them some spending cash and an opportunity to start managing their money" (Hartnett). Hartnett is a believer that college athletes are already working two jobs: one as a student, and one as an athlete. Hartnett states that "being an athlete is a full-time job." (Hartnett). Being a full time college athlete requires many hours throughout one's day that include workouts, practices, and studying film or the playbook. Add that all up and that is around four to six hours a day just spent on preparing for the games. Also, athletes spend numerous hours playing in the games and even more traveling to wherever their next game is. It is very time consuming for an athlete to also have a job along with their studies and sport. The easiest opportunity for college athletes to make money is for them to be paid by either the NCAA or the universities for their contributions to the school's teams.

Another alternative way for college athletic compensation is for athletes to be able to sell their own name. AJ McCarron says, "And with players' jerseys being sold and them not seeing any of that, and then being used for video games, I think eventually something's gotta give and players end up being paid." (Mitrosilis). One way college athletes create profit for the NCAA from is through the NCAA video game series. There is a yearly football game that is made and sold every year with college football players in it. However, some people argue that it is flawed because the NCAA makes profit off the game while the players that are actually on the game receive nothing in return. Also, players are not allowed to sell their autographs to anyone under any circumstances. Michael Wilbon, a co-host on the show "Pardon The Interruption" on ESPN and Chicago Tribune sports writer, states, "If somebody is willing to give A.J. Green $750 or $1,000 or even $2,500 for his Georgia Bulldogs jersey, fine, good." (Wilbon). Wilbon believes that it is wrong for the NCAA to not allow athletes to make some extra cash off of their own name. It seems that a college student should have his or her rights to his or her name, and should be allowed to do whatever they want with it, whether it be selling it by autographing a football or for other purposes. A regular non student athlete is allowed to sell his or her autograph for money, so why can't a student athlete do so? Yes, that is what they signed up for and not being able to sell memorabilia is part of being a student athlete, but Wilbon is suggesting a rule change that allows players to sell their own jersey/autograph. He would argue that just because a person plays a sport for the school, that doesn't give the school the right to not allow them to profit off of their own birth name. The main point for pro athlete compensation viewers is that college athletes do so much for the university, it would just be unfair for them not to see any return in compensation.

People who are against paying college athletes agree with the opposing side on one point. It is almost common sense viewed by most people that it is a bit unfair that some athletes like Johnny Manziel for Texas A&M can be so valuable to their universities but not be allowed to take any cash or other benefits. There are some people like Tom Van Riper, a writer for Forbes magazine who covers the business of sports, who believe that it is completely justified for athletes not to be paid at all. He used a metaphor to back up his point where his 8 year old daughter was playing in a church basketball game. This game was the biggest all year, and it was a one dollar entry to get in. Obviously, his daughter nor the other players received any of the attendance sales cash. He says, "This was CYO basketball as parish fundraiser. Eight-year-old girls as free labor. My daughter and her teammates wouldn't see a dime (about what they were worth) for their sweat. They were exploited, right?" (Van Riper). Van Riper uses a rather humorous sarcastic sentence by saying that his eight year old daughter should be paid because he was charged for admission. And by using people who are for college athlete completion's logic, it is completely absurd for his daughter nor the other players to not receive any cash. Now those girls are technically under the legal working age, so they can't receive money. But the majority of people who play high school sports are able to work, and a lot of high school events cost money to get in, so that same metaphor could be used but this time one that includes high school athletes is more comparable and has better credibility. He can compare it to fans who pay to attend collegiate athletic games and he could say it is the same situation with high school athletes. People paid money to watch the players, but the players didn't receive any cash for their performances. This is a great metaphor to compare two different scenarios that both represent similar situations. (Van Riper).

Where the anti-athlete compensation viewers mainly differ from the opposition is that not paying college athletes is simply just the best option. One big issue that would result from paying college athletes is which athletes should get paid? If it is the same sport, a question that can be asked and is by Terry Frei, "Does the backup tackle, anywhere, get the same stipend as the quarterback?" (Frei). Frei brings up a good point because logic says the star quarterback should receive more money because he contributes more to the team than a backup player who hasn't seen the field all year. One who contributes more to the performance of an organization is going to get paid more than one who does not contribute more. But if somehow there was a proposal for the "more important" players to receive more a salary, then that would cause an uproar and controversy from all the players who felt they were mistreated in their compensation by not being given enough money par to their performance. Also, the only sports that actually make money for the university are football and basketball, (Lee) so it would be very logically odd for athletes who don't generate money to receive payments. In fact, according to an NCAA study, only 57% of football and basketball teams generated profit for the university (Lee). But as Damon Salvadore states, "It (people protesting) would never end because you've opened pandoras box. Once you pay one athletic program, you would have to pay every program." (Salvadore). He makes a valid argument in saying chaos would occur because all the other sports would get mad and possibly sue the school for not being paid like the football or basketball team, or just simply protest by not participating and refusing to play in the games or matches. So basically the arguments made here are that paying college athletes would cause more controversy than the original argument of if they should be paid or not.

Another strong claim for not paying college athletes is the argument that they are already being paid. Terry Frei of The Denver Post believes "The compensation is called "a scholarship."" (Frei). Scholarships can be small, but for the bigger revenue-streaming sports, they can be as expensive as giving the athlete a free ride to attend their university. Frei would argue that a scholarship is basically a $20,000 check for playing. Damon Salvadore writes that a scholarship is not the only thing athletes receive: "The biggest universities give the athletes the best gyms to workout in, free health insurance for injuries, transportation, food, equipment and most importantly free tuition. That in itself is a payment for three to four years to attend at the school." (Salvadore). Salvadore is correct in saying that at some colleges, athletes do receive many other benefits that one can't necessarily put a price tag on, but are very valuable amenities to have. An article written in The USA Today states "Public universities competing in NCAA Division I sports spend as much as six times more per athlete than they spend to educate students." (USA Today). Student athletes make up a small proportion of every school's student population, and they are still spent as much as six times the amount on their small percentage than the other main population of the students who do not play sports. What Salvadore and many other's main message is that college athletes are already given thousands of dollars in scholarships and other amenities, so paying them extra cash would be a bit excessive.

I do agree that it is unfair how some college athletes bring in so much money for their schools and don't see any extra money in return. It is a bit messed up that a player like Johnny Manziel can be the main reason for the national exposure of Texas A&M, however not see any money in return other than a scholarship and other amenities. But the thing is that those "other amenities" actually make up for a big salary. A full ride scholarship can be up to $40,000. Access to a top notch gym would approximately be around $500 while traveling expenses to and from other schools would cost in the thousands. So if one looks at it in terms of amenities counting as salary, those athletes make more money than a majority of college professors. Also in recent news, NCAA athletes now "can eat as much as their school allows." (Norlander). Before, players were only allowed a free three meal plan a day, but now they are allowed unlimited food all day long. All these amenities they receive prove to me that there is no reason for athletes to have a yearly salary when they are already having a bill that could potentially cost up to $50,000 completely paid off for them. Also, the reality is that the percentage of athletes that actually generate money for the school themselves is small, so paying all college athletes is not logical in my opinion. If only a handful of athletes were paid, I believe that it would cause an even bigger problem because all the other athletes would feel mistreated. And if there is a large number of athletes who felt underpaid or just weren't paid at all, that could cause for a lot of controversy that might include multiple lawsuits.

Also another burning issue is that most schools don't have enough money in their sports department to pay college athletes. With the cost of gas and other traveling expenses these days, schools have had to scramble to find money and have even had to end up cutting some of the school's athletic programs so they can save money. So if only the big universities that are in big conferences that have multi-million dollar TV contracts were able to pay players, then that would create a major advantage for all the big schools and leave the smaller schools in the dust. And what makes college sports so great is that on any given day, any small school can upset a big school in any sport, which makes college sports so fun to watch in my opinion. The only rule I would change is for athletes to be allowed to sell their autographs for cash. It is their name they are signing, so I believe it is their right to sign something and be able to seek cash in return. I see no problems with athletes being able to sign a few autographs at a planned event like a spring game, and being able to seek some cash in return. Now it would be difficult to regulate because there is the threat of agents potentially paying for players autograph in great excess in hope that the player will sign with that specific agent, but that goes on today and is something that is hard to prevent. I do not think they should receive money for jersey sales, because unlike the major league sports, the colleges sell jersey numbers with no names on the back. So technically they are just selling numbers and not jerseys that represent a certain player.
