Reaping the benefits of hard work is something we all enjoy. If one puts in the effort and then doesn't get any of the reward, it creates quite an unfair situation. A similar scenario is currently playing out in the highly entertaining world of college athletics. Many of us have that one team that we hold dear and true, and we often keep up with the drama that takes place off the field as well. From the vantage point that the average person has of college sports, it's hard to believe that some of those extremely gifted and highly praised athletes sometimes can't afford to buy dinner or go see a movie with their friends on a day off. The National Collegiate Athletic Association currently has a vice grip on the lives of the players at its member schools. Although many of the Division-1 athletes are at their respective schools on full scholarships, that money disappears very quickly. Meanwhile, the NCAA and schools with successful athletic programs are raking in millions of dollars a year. Clearly, there seems to be a bit of unbalance here. Although I do not believe that the NCAA should be responsible for giving players a salary, I think they need to loosen their grip a bit and give the players more freedom. Certain laws back up this belief, and past individual cases show that progress is on the horizon. I believe that college athletes should be allowed to use their name and likeness to earn money, outside of the NCAA's control.

College athletics has been around for over a hundred years, and it seems to gain more and more popularity with each passing year. It is governed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which, coincidentally, has also been around for quite some time. In the late 1800s, college football was becoming incredibly popular, but also began to produce several fatalities and severe injuries (Acquaviva 3). Alarmed, President Theodore Roosevelt took action and decided to call upon the presidents of Harvard, Yale and Princeton to make a change with the sport and make it more safe (Acquaviva 3). Out of this, the Intercollegiate Athletic Association was formed, which later morphed into the NCAA in 1910 (Acquaviva 3). For the first half of the twentieth century, college sports were mainly a commercial affair, and academics and integrity were not necessarily a top priority. Concerns were raised about this, prompting the NCAA to construct a "Sanity Code" that, "limited financial aid for athletes to tuition and fees, and required that aid otherwise be given based on need" (Acquaviva 4). A living stipend was later added to the accepted athletic scholarship to prevent large southern schools from leaving the NCAA (Acquaviva 4). Since then, the NCAA has expanded considerably and turned itself into a giant institution. It has split into three divisions, has 1,300 schools under its jurisdiction, and therefore also oversees the actions of 400,000 student athletes (Acquaviva 5). The NCAA holds itself to a high standard and has become increasingly strict about what players can and cannot do, both on and off the field. Their self-described mission is, "[t]o initiate... and improve intercollegiate athletics programs for student-athletes and to promote... athletics participation as a recreational pursuit" (McCormick 73). They use the term "student-athlete" over and over again, putting emphasis on the fact that the players at its member institutions are students first and athletes second. Another term that the NCAA tosses around very frequently when defending its decisions involving athletes being paid is "amateurism." It considers all college athletes to be amateurs, even if they play in a nationally televised game every week and earn their university millions of dollars. They explain their view of amateurism by saying, "'Student-athletes shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their participation should be motivated primarily by education and by the physical, mental and social benefits to be derived. Student participation in collegiate athletics is an avocation, and student athletes should be protected from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprise'" (McCormick 73). That last sentence seems insanely ironic, considering the NCAA appears to be giving student athletes the short end of the stick in some scenarios. 

In recent years of technology and social media, the NCAA's programs and entertainment have become increasingly popular and it has turned into a money-making giant. During this time of year specifically, it is enjoying quite a large revenue boost due to the March Madness men's basketball tournament. For example, in 2005, the broadcast revenue during the NCAA March madness tournament was an impressive $564 million (Kahn 209). Keep in mind, that number does not include ticket sales. Also remember that none of this money finds its way back to the players that are drawing all the national attention and excitement. That number has also grown and is expected to continue to grow in the coming years. In 2014, CBS paid the NCAA roughly $800 million for the right to broadcast March Madness (Sanderson, Siegfried 120). Amazingly, there have also been several years where college athletics outpaced professional athletics in the money-making category. In 1999, the total ticket earnings from college football and basketball added up to $757 million, while professional baseball, football, and hockey totaled surprisingly less (Kahn 209). If they're drawing professional-sized crowds, it doesn't seem logical to leave student athletes with no form of earnings at the end of the day. The NCAA aren't the only ones that are receiving high amounts of pay. Universities with large, successful, and popular athletic programs also receive astounding sums of money every season. Coaches at those large, well-known schools also enjoy some very hefty salaries. It isn't uncommon for a coach to earn $15 million yearly, and boosters have also been known to pay for a coach's house or car just to keep him happy and at their school for as long as possible. 

On the other end of the spectrum, the players work incredibly hard and do not appear to receive that much in return. Although some people may try to argue that a free college education at a university that the athlete may or may not have been able to attend by their own merit is enough compensation, those scholarships really do not go as far as many people think. Full scholarships only cover the cost of tuition, room, board, books, and a very small living stipend. This may seem like a lot, but athletes still need to earn money for food and other living necessities. Many students who are not athletes have one or even two jobs outside of their studies to help them earn much needed extra money, but athletes have an incredibly hectic schedule. The time they spend practicing and playing games is time that their classmates spend working and earning an income. Technically, this puts student athletes at a disadvantage. Also, remember that not all student athletes are on full scholarships. It is apparent that being on a college sports team is a full-time, year-round job. For example, Northwestern's football team has a very strict schedule that changes from month to month. Like other schools, they hold summer workouts that often begin as early as 6:30am (Gibbs, Mans 34). During their summer sessions, players devote approximately 50 to 60 hours per week in practice, doing rehabilitation, participating in team meetings and meals, and studying plays (Gibbs, Mans 34). The season hasn't even started yet, and the athletes are already clocking more hours than they would in a regular job. During the regular season, which typically runs from September to November, players spend approximately 40 to 50 hours a week in practice, the weight room, watching film, and team meetings (Gibbs, Mans 34). None of this counts towards their degrees and school work. They ust find time to get their work done in between all of their other responsibilities that come with being a student athlete. 50 hours of time spent on a sport per week that earns millions of dollars for the university, and players are still forbidden from accepting gestures as small as a free dinner? That doesn't seem right at all. The athletes also don't get much of a break in between seasons. Once the season concludes, winter workouts begin, which can average 12 to 15 hours of work a week (Gibbs, mans 34). Once spring rolls around, spring football begins, and players devote 20 to 25 hours of their week to practices and scrimmages (Gibbs, Mans 34). When summer arrives, the whole process repeats itself. Clearly, players have to earn every bit of that free tuition that they are given. 

In terms of national law, it is possible that collegiate athletes actually could be considered employees in certain situations. Under the National Labor Relations Act, players could qualify as employees and unionize if they so chose (Parasuraman 740). Unfortunately, the NCAA continues to find ways to prevent this from happening. "At least one analysis argues that, under Brown University, college athletes in revenue-generating sports are entitled to 'employee' status under the NLRA but the NCAA and its member institutions have deliberately and successfully evaded such classification for decades" (Parasuraman 739). Although I think it may be too complicated to try to give every player a salary or pay them for every game, they should still be allowed to make money by marketing themselves. These athletes work day in and day out to improve their game and help their team win, and in turn represent their university well on a national stage. They provide their school with a national reputation, so I think the least the NCAA and its member schools can do is allow athletes to earn money off the field on their own time. As I've stated before, average students in college often have at least one job that they use to earn an income outside of school, so student athletes should be allowed to do the same. 

Allowing student athletes to earn some money also helps to prevent "under-the-table" actions from athletes who just need a little extra cash. In recent years, there have been a number of scandals involving athletes receiving improper gifts or money. Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel, for example, "allegedly received improper benefits in exchange for his autograph and was suspended for the first half of Texas A&M's season opener for an 'inadvertent violation of NCAA rules'" (Grimmett 823). The NCAA is so incredibly strict when it comes to players receiving "improper benefits." They even went so far as to punish a football player by suspending him when he accepted some free groceries after he had used all of his scholarship money (Parasuraman 728). If that isn't crazy enough, a few years ago, a Utah football coach treated one of his players to lunch when one of his parents died, and the NCAA punished the player, saying that by accepting the free lunch he was in violation of NCAA regulations (Oliver 5:10). I can understand punishing a player for accepting a coach's $5,000 bribe to sign with his team, but punishing players for accepting one free dinner in the midst of a family tragedy is absolutely ridiculous. If players were allowed to use their name and likeness to earn some money, the NCAA and the college sports world in general would be far less corrupt. "Providing a uniform system of compensating athletes could deter improper inducements, which affect fair competition among member institutions" (824 Grimmett). This is an incredibly valid point, because a lot of the penalties and punishments that the NCAA hands down for trivial things has begun to affect the integrity of sports. For example, when a team's start player is suspended for a game due to some sort of violation, the opposing team may win when they shouldn't have, all because the most valuable player was missing. In my opinion, the integrity of sports is something that the NCAA should prioritize above other trivial things. Accepting one free meal does not affect the fairness of a game, but suspending a team's best player for an irrational reason does. 

If it hasn't been made clear already, the NCAA has been exploiting athletes more and more in recent years, and something needs to change. When a player decides to play a sport at the college level, they essentially are asked to sign their rights away by the NCAA. Student athletes are required to agree to and sign a document called Form 14-3a, which outlines the terms and conditions that they must agree to in order to play for their university (Lush 767). It is seven pages long and explains the regulations that a player must follow to remain eligible (Lush 767). This sounds somewhat reasonable, but this form is actually just the tip of the iceberg. By signing off on this document, players agree that they have read the Summary of NCAA Regulations, which happens to be thirteen pages in length (Lush 768). This lengthy document summarizes the 500-page Division 1 manual that lists every single rule that players must adhere to (Lush 768). 500 pages of rules seems a bit excessive in my opinion. Another aspect of the 14-3a document that seems a bit unfair is the section entitled, "Part IV: Promotion of NCAA Championships, Events, Activities, or Programs" (Lush 768). This section contains lots of important information regarding the NCAA's use of an athlete's Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) (Lush 768). It basically states that the NCAA can use an athlete's NIL in any way that it pleases as long as it is somehow tie to sports. This section of the manual is suspiciously placed in the middle of the document, so it is very likely that most athletes skim over this section and aren't completely aware of what exactly they are signing over. This seems incredibly unfair. Athletes should be able to earn money through their NIL without punishment.

There are some valid criticisms against student athletes being allowed to use their fame to make money. Some argue that college is strictly a time for learning, not making an income. I do believe that education should always come first, but nothing is wrong with making some extra cash for oneself. Also, people often emphasize the fact that players have the unique privilege of going to college for free. "It costs $57,180 to go to Duke. It's $31,946 to attend Butler. The University of Cincinnati, a public, urban place with lots of commuters, costs $24,942 if you're from out of state, which describes the bulk of football and basketball players" (Daugherty 8). Out of all 400,000 student athletes in the NCAA, only a small number of them attend schools with very high scholarship values. Also, regardless of how much the scholarship is worth, the athlete still doesn't have time for a part-time job, so they miss out on various money-making opportunities during college. 

Overall, I believe that the relationship between student athletes and the National Collegiate Athletic Association has become increasingly corrupt. The NCAA hides behind terms such as "student-athlete" and "amateurism" to mask the fact that they are essentially exploiting athletes and using their talents for their own benefit. This is a very important issue because these students are possibly being denied rights that they should be entitled to as American citizens. America is a place to make dreams come true and to have endless opportunities to better oneself, and although playing a sport at the college level is an amazing opportunity, the NCAA is currently blocking players from even more opportunities. Something needs to change, because the current system is very unfair. College athletes should be allowed to use their name, Image, and Likeness to earn them some extra money that they can use to pay for basic living expenses. Coaches should also be allowed to award players in an appropriate manner without being punished. The players put in the same amount or more time and effort than one would in a regular job, so they should reap some of the rewards as well.

