For a while, whenever the question of whether or not college athletes should get paid, I always answered no. My reasoning was that most athletes were already on major scholarships, and I believed a portion of their funds was already designated as spending money. However, after taking a closer look at their lifestyle, I realized that my assumptions were wrong. Many of the athletes' parents can't afford tuition and are fortunate enough that their children were gifted with a talent. Despite athletes being afforded a considerable amount of money, a lot of the times, their parents are unable to travel to their child's game. However, from the outside looking in you would never know that they lack additional funds due to them being decked out in sports gear. After doing more research on the athletes, my views changed and I was in favor of athletes' pay. 

One thing that everyone can agree on, whether you are Jay Bilas or a fan sitting in nosebleeds, is that the NCAA is a multi-billion dollar business. According to Listland.com, the NCAA generates approximately $11 billion, most of it from football, basketball and baseball. Although much of its money comes from the sports that attract the most viewers, smaller sports also add to the NCAA's total funds. Some colleges and universities bring in over $100 million dollars per year, from only athletics. As Listland points out, this is more than 83% of what NBA teams bring in.  This is a major concern because the NCAA continues to come up with excuses, supporting their claim that they lack revenue, to compensate college athletes. According to USA Today, they've reported that over 40% of teams in 2014's March Madness either broke even or lost money. However, contrary to the reports, economists interviewed by Maxwell Strachan, insist that the money is there. The NCAA system is just set up so that any money that comes in from college athletics is spent quickly, and any money in college athletics is most likely divided between coaches or spent building state of the art facilities for the students. In his interview with Maurice Peebles, Jay Bilas stresses that, "Regardless of how many billions of dollars are passed around between the NCAA, its broadcast partners and various sponsoring corporations, the players themselves still make zero." Although, in 1906 when the NCAA was founded, and it was known that there would be no pay given to student-athletes, there's no doubt that times have changed. The league is far more advanced now and generates billions of dollars. Much of those dollars are bought in by student athletes, in which, if the system stays as it is, they'll never get to see (Listland).

Due to the NCAA making so much money, usually administrators, coaches and athletic directors of colleges profit the most from student-athletes' cheap labor. Contrary to beliefs, the rules and regulation of the NCAA doesn't allow student athletes to be used for "promotional purpose" or "monetary gains", but ironically clothing brands and universities profit off of them wearing their gear. Shelly Anderson argues against this claim in her article, "College Athletes Should be Allowed to have Their Own Endorsement Deals." Anderson introduces readers to the Jeremy Bloom case. In the early 2000s, Bloom was a University of Colorado football player as well as a skier in the World Cup Championship and the Olympics. The NCAA declared that Bloom was ineligible to play in the NCAA the remainder of his college career, which he claimed to be the worst part, because he accepted endorsement deals due on behalf of his skiing career. First and foremost, the NCAA claims that they have insufficient funds to compensate college athletes and secondly they don't allow them to accept endorsement deals. If given the opportunity to accept endorsement deals, athletes would be given money and they wouldn't drastically be altering the structure of the NCAA. 

One of the more obvious reasons that college athletes should be paid is because they bring in tons of money to their school just with the apparel and merchandise sales alone. Just walk on any Division 1 campus and you could easily spot out any athlete. They are most likely decked out in their school's colors and whatever sports brand their athletic department has signed with. As for the University of South Carolina, if you aren't able to identify our superstars by their garnet and black, you can't definitely recognize them by their garnet or black Under Armour sneakers. Our athletes are promoting a name brand that was once considered "ugly" or "inferior" compared to one of the more dominant brands, such as Nike. The NCAA continues to contradict itself by using these "public figures for their own gain" but not allowing the players themselves to "use their likeness for promotional purpose or monetary gains" Due to their great success in athletics at colleges and universities, student athletes influence the number of applications and quality of applications to the school. Which is beneficial because we're not only talking about Division 1 schools, but the smaller schools as well, which is why the cost of tuition can sometimes fluctuate (Listland). Tom Farniok who is a former Iowa State football player says that "if you're making the school money they should make sure you have everything you need. Free education? Yeah, but at what cost" (Dodd).

Which addresses the issue of how there are many college athletes who struggle to make ends meet off the court. While tuition, meal plans and accommodation fees are covered by scholarships, the COA, or cost of attendance, is what student athlete's lack. These are cost such as laundry, or having enough money to buy toiletries. As Gene Smith likes to put it, "there is a certain part of our student athlete population that does not have enough spending money" (Dodd). Additionally some of the athletes who contribute the most on the team, may lack the most financially. The truth of the matter is that not everyone comes from a wealthy family. Although there may be a packed house, and thousands of fans cheering in the stands, a lot of the families of the players aren't able to attend the games due to lack of funds. Sometimes the first time a player's family sees them play in person is their senior year at their college or university. For a four family house with one child in college and the other still at home, they would have to purchase three tickets for the game, as well as three tickets for a plane or gas money to drive to the stadium.  As Listland points out, athletic scholarships are "the way out" for many athletes and although small costs may seem minute, it could be critical to the reputation of a player. The system is designed for student athletes to designate most of their time to their sport, while also staying in good academic standing. If one fails to do so, they are acquitted of their duties and their scholarship is taken. Not only would funds help the students but it would give them a head start on managing their money, especially if they pursue their dreams and continue to perfect their talent professionally.

How do players deal with not being compensated for their work? When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. Due to players not being able to accept funds, promote themselves and receive a check from the NCAA, sometimes players may have alternatives in getting the money they need to survive as a college athlete, specifically illegal, under-the-table funds. Brian Porto argues that "paid college athletes won't be tempted to accept illegal payments or gamble." He places some of the blame on the harsh conditions of the NCAA's eligibility rules. His theory is that colleges will use a student for four or five years and then after they are worn out, their career is over unless they are fortunate enough to play in the big leagues. Porto claims that "under these circumstances it is not surprising that athletes try to exploit their own athletic ability for financial rewards." Although there are many athletes who go with the flow and accept not being paid, there are others who recognize how their cheap labor is benefitting everyone else but themselves and they want a piece of the pie as well, so they turn to gambling and illegal bets that sometimes, in extreme cases, end up with players "throwing the game" in order to maintain their income. 

Which leads me to a bigger question. Where are the billions of dollars the college athletes are bringing in to the NCAA? Why are there so many nice facilities and locker rooms? Who is deciding where the money goes? Bottom line is, coaches are overpaid and overcompensated for their time. McLaughlin and Rotthoff points out a major flaw in the NCAA system, "Because college players can't be paid, the money that would go to them in a normal labor market shifts to other parts of the program." They also bring to attention that the difference between the salaries of the NFL and NCAA coaches is that the salaries of college athletes aren't determined by market forces, as they are in the NFL. In Strachan's article, he claims that there are multiple NCAA coaches with NFL salaries and why, in some cases, it would benefit some NFL coaches to trade in the job and go work in the collegiate league. A surprising fact, according to Strachan, is that in over 60% of the states, some of the best paid public employees is either a basketball or football coach, which isn't surprising considering the fact that these are the top two sports that generate the most revenue. Which proves that implementing why implementing a new system won't be a strenuous as the NCAA is claiming it will. 

There is an excess amount of funds circulating in the NCAA which is meant to be spent rather than sit. College coaches have the right to persuade recruits into coming to their schools based on the reputation of the athletic program, along with tours of the campus and fitness center as well as the athletic staff. If funds were provided to the athletes, coaches could also attract athletes with the idea of having a stipend while attending the college or university. However, those opposed of paying athletes do have a valid point when they talk about how paying athletes could lead to "bidding wars" as Strachan calls it. However, he continues to argue that the system is currently set up to where there are "bidding wars" in the sense that college recruits fight to see who can offer the sweetest deal to a player, which includes a great experience on campus, top notch facilities, and famous, well known coaches who dangle the chance to make it professional in the faces of high school students. Usually the Division 1 teams have the most to offer and are more appealing to recruits, which most likely contributes to the idea of number one picks committing to a school very early. 

Another concern with paying athletes is the "ambiguity in the importance of each sport" (McCauley). This issue is mainly addressing the idea that there are less popular sports that do not generate nearly as much revenue as some of the bigger sports. Also you can't address the issue of unequal pay without addressing the issue of equal pay between genders. Even though there may be 25 million more people who watch the NCAA men's championship game compared to the women's championship game, those numbers still don't represent how hard the recruits work to get outstanding players to attend their school. In this case I think the most reasonable thing to do is let the universities decide who they would pay and how much the stipend would be. Not to mention Division 2 and 3 schools. According to Bilas, if athletes were to get paid, there is this idea that other sports who don't generate as much money for the school will be canceled, they can't seem to find a solution to change the current system and it will change the value or status of many Division I teams. If their budgets are too demanding, they should be able to receive money from the NCAA and pay their students out of that money specifically. 

Bringing me to my final point that in January of 2015, school and athlete representatives voted in favor of the Cost of Attendance bill which would allow Division 1 teams to cover athletes' cost of attendance. Although this was not mandatory, it is a major step for college athletes. What is the cause of this new rule? In previous articles, the journalist or interviewee argued that the NCAA was responsible for not compensating student-athletes. However, Dennis Dodd argues that administrators are the cause of withholding funds, and are now guilty of their actions. In order to make up for lost time, they would now like to share the wealth. Dennis Dodd is the senior college football columnist for CBS Sports and has been a part of the Bowl Championship Series for about thirty years and has covered many games in his career. He is in favor of new proposals, such as the Cost of Attendance, the Power 5, which consists of the Southeastern Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference, Pacific-12 Conference, Big 10 and Big 12, because now they are able to challenge old NCAA rules and discuss possible new rules that they would want to implement to help provide funds for student athletes. With new proposals, it challenges the "worth of the scholarship to the compensation/benefits of the services rendered."

Although one may think this is a cut and dry question, after reading one may find out that they're on the fence about whether or not college athletes should be paid.  By looking at the lives of a college athlete, the loaded "work" week, study halls and travel time during the week, one can see that it is crucial to pay college athletes. This issue is important because currently a lot of colleges are not providing funds from donors or sponsors, but they are allowed to market their gear while coaches are given a fortune of money, due to their "cheap" labor. While some athletic directors and coaches interviewed by Dennis Dodd agree that they have milked the system and are now trying to make up for lost time by approving the Cost of Attendance rule, there are still rules by the NCAA that prohibit college athletes from receiving the revenue that they have brought to a school or sports brand. There are a variety of ways college athletes could be compensated for their time and effort. Although there are steps being taken to fund student athletes, not every school is taking advantage of the opportunity. However, the University of South Carolina did agree to allow to cover the cost of attendance and were allowed to increase the value of athletic scholarships and personal travel according to USA Today. When asked about the progress and success of the new NCAA rules, President Pastides said, "I think we've made good progress. I think we deserve a chance to see how good the progress is." (The State.)

