Growing up in a house with two older brothers and parents that were very into sports, I've always had an interest in college athletics. The North Carolina Tar Heels have been our team for as long as I can remember, and when I was younger, I actually thought the players were paid because of all the national attention they got. Until very recently, I saw no reason why college athletes should earn any money, but my research has greatly changed my view so far. It has become apparent to me that the NCAA is mistreating its players by not compensating them in the form of a salary. The yearly revenue that it rakes in is absolutely shocking, considering none of it goes directly to the players. Many cases throughout recent years also display the association's unfair treatment of athletes in terms of punishment and suspension. I strongly believe that college athletes are entitled to a reasonable salary provided by the NCAA.

This topic interests me for a number of reasons. Firstly, it seems that in recent years there have been so many scandals emerging from the college football and basketball world regarding players accepting money and gifts and violating their contract with the NCAA. Since I want to be a sports journalist, I follow these issues closely. One very extreme example is Johnny Manziel, a current Browns quarterback who used to be the starting quarterback for Texas A&M. During his college days, he encountered some issues with signing autographs for money, which resulted in a temporary suspension. Cam Newton, the current Carolina Panthers quarterback and former Auburn quarterback also faced similar issues a few years ago. The past few years I have noticed that the NCAA seems to be becoming increasingly corrupt, and I became curious as to whether or not they are in the wrong. Also, I find almost any topic within the sports world to be interesting, so I figured this would be a topic that I would enjoy researching. 

Although this topic does not directly affect me, it does mean a lot to me for different reasons. I have several family friends who play or have played collegiate sports, and I want them to be treated fairly and not be taken advantage of. I also personally believe that if an individual works hard for something and earns money for some sort of organization or association, they should be entitled to a certain amount of the revenue earned. I believe that fairness is crucial in any type of business, and that includes collegiate sports. Unfortunately, I don't have any personal experience regarding this topic, but my extensive research has given me a very good idea of what is happening between college athletes and the NCAA. I personally feel that despite my lack of personal experience with this topic, I am qualified to write about it. I am a print journalism major and hope to cover college and professional sports one day, so I follow the happenings in the sports world on a daily basis. I have witnessed several controversies over the last few years surrounding the debate of whether or not college athletes should be paid. Therefore, I have a solid foundation for my research on the topic and feel like I understand the happenings in the sports world quite well. 

My first source, an article by Ben Cohen entitled, "The Case for Paying College Athletes," makes the main claim that college athletes should indeed earn a salary. Most of this article's very solid evidence was rooted in statistics. For example, it stated that the average college athletic scholarship does not cover $3,222 worth of necessary educational expenses. The major values for the article begin with the fact that fairness is of utmost importance. The fair treatment of players by the NCAA is what the author appears to be most concerned with throughout the article. I believe that the author is quite credible to write about this topic because he has a law degree and works for a prestigious law firm, so therefore he is qualified to write about topics such as this that concern NCAA laws and contracts.

My second source entitled, "Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes," makes two opposite claims that contradict each other: college athletes should be completely amateur, and college athletes should earn a salary. These two opposite ends of the spectrum create an interesting juxtaposition. The first argument uses evidence explaining that a college athletic scholarship can cost a university $200,000 over four years. On the other side of the argument, the "Plantation system," is used as the primary evidence. The major values in this article are money, fairness, and amateurism. Although the second half values college players being paid, the first half of the article believes just the opposite. The authors are both very credible because they both have higher education degrees in their respective subjects, and they are both apart of the U.S. 

Sports Academy in Contemporary Sports Issues. The article definitely isn't biased since both sides of the issue are explored in depth.

My final source called, "Pay-For-Play: An Age-Old Struggle For Appropriate Reform In A Changing Landscape Between Employer And Employee," makes the broad claim that athletes should be paid. The main evidence it uses is a brief synopsis of the history of the NCAA. It also explains some of America's labor laws, which provide more context for the issue. Multiple personal cases of athletes being unfairly treated by the NCAA are also used as evidence. The main value that is stressed in this article is fair treatment of players by the NCAA. The cases that are brought up as evidence show how much the author disproves of the unfair treatment and strongly believes that athletes should indeed earn a salary from the NCAA in exchange for their play. The author is extremely credible because he has a law degree and is very familiar with American labor laws. The article itself is not biased because it introduces counterarguments throughout to create a balanced argument.

This research question is very arguable because both sides have reasonable evidence that can support their claims. There isn't a very obvious correct answer, and it takes some research to come to a conclusion. Throughout my research, I have noticed that most of the articles agree that the NCAA makes a very large amount of money off of their players. The main thing that they disagree on is where that money goes after the NCAA collects it from promotional deals and fans attending the games. One side believes that the players should remain amateurs until they decide 

to become professionals, and the other side believes the players should be compensated by the NCAA. Reading through the different sources has opened my eyes to both sides of the argument, but ultimately has led me to believe that the players should be paid. I have found more substantial evidence on this side of the argument due to the overwhelming personal accounts and statistics. I think that I could possibly make my research question more specific, and also broaden it to discuss how it affects other people, besides athletes and universities. This will be very challenging, but with more extensive research it is certainly possible.

