College sports have been a major part of American culture and society for some time now, and is the gateway for any athletes looking to eventually make it to the professional level in their respected sports. However, recently, there has been some debate surrounding college sports and the athletes that participate in collegiate level sports. Analysts, businessmen, and athletes themselves, have discussed at length whether or not college athletes should be paid by the NCAA for the huge amount of money the athletes generate the organization. Arguments have been made for both sides, but collegiate athletes are just that, collegiate level athletes. Paying these athletes in the form of money or perks would ruin the idea of amateurism that collegiate sports is founded upon, bigger schools would benefit leaving smaller schools at a disadvantage, and further more students should be students first and athletes second, let alone athletes that get paid for the privilege of sports. 

The issue of college athletes being paid has been around for a while and has been discussed for years, however, it was until as recent as the early 2000 to mid-2000's that the issue really got some heat. Athletes were suing the NCAA for making money of their image and likeness in video games, which prompted for some discussion. In fact, when the case went to a federal appeals court, the judge ruled that the NCAA's use of images and athlete's likeness in video games and broadcasts violates anti-trust laws (The Associated Press). The court ruled against deferred payments to athletes though, saying, "The difference between offering student-athletes education-related compensation and offering them cash sums untethered to educational expenses is not minor; it is a quantum leap." Another reason this issue of compensating college athletes has arisen is simply because the NCAA has modeled itself after a professional model in which they try to promote "elite" athletics instead of an educational model (John R. Gerdy). What this means is essentially the NCAA wants to make money in the way professional leagues like the NFL and NBA do, promoting its athletes and its athletics. The problem with this though, is the fact that the NFL and NBA athletes are professional meaning it's their job. College athletes aren't professionals yet, they are students. The NCAA tries to promote its sports and its athletes in an attempt to bring more money in, yet don't pay the players who bring that money in through promotion and they've caught on and thus brought more light to this issue (John R. Gerdy).

One big reason college athletes couldn't be paid is because aside from the big sports of football and basketball sports don't generate that much money. Most of the NCAA's money comes from those two sources. Suppose that the NCAA were to pay the athletes on the major sports teams like football and basketball, this would cause an equality issue. Why should only two of the many athletes from the many different sports the NCAA has be paid? As one author suggests, "Moreover, the equity problem could obviously be solved if all collegiate athletes get paid the same base salary for their participation," however, where would the money come from to pay these athletes that participate in smaller sports, like equestrian, for example? (Krikor Meshefejian). Paying every athlete that participates in a sport is a nice idea, but you have to realize the money just isn't there. Smaller sports don't generate the money and schools probably wouldn't be willing to pay the participants of these sports seeing as how, comparatively, they aren't bringing that much money in for the NCAA.

Speaking of money and who generates what, bigger schools obviously bring more money in. Currently, bigger schools are already to attract the best players, because they are bigger and have more money to spend on things like facilities and equipment. If schools were to start paying players however, athletes would simply go to which ever school was willing to pay them the most money. It would essentially create bidding wars between bigger schools, leaving smaller schools with less money at a severe disadvantage. This would also result in a disconnection to the university. To quote Ekow Yankah, "If a high-school football prodigy reported that he chose Michigan not for its academic quality, tradition, or beautiful campus but because it outbid all other suitors, a connection to the university's values would be lost" (Ekow Yankah). Student-athletes would no longer attend a university because they love the school but rather because they can pay the most money. This goes hand in hand with the idea of collegiate sports and the NCAA being modeled after a professional model. Collegiate sports would simply turn into the NFL if that were to happen, with bigger schools paying best players and snagging them up. 

A cornerstone for the NCAA is the idea of amateurism. "All student-athletes, including international students, are required to adhere to NCAA amateurism requirements to remain eligible for intercollegiate competition" (www.ncaa.org). This essentially means that athletes are not allowed to be paid or receive any special perks of any type as a result of them being a collegiate athlete. In an article from the New York Post, "Seth Waxman cited a 1984 US Supreme Court ruling during oral arguments before the 9th Circuit in March. The ruling said athletes must not be paid in order to preserve the character and quality of college athletics." (Associated Press). College is meant for education not for sports to be a job, which is what it would essentially turn into if pay and money was involved. When the article is mentions character and quality, they are referring to being a student-athlete, not just an athlete that goes to a university for sports. 

It's sometimes easily forgotten that collegiate athletes that compete in all these different sports are not just athletes, they are student-athletes. This means they still need to make the grades, attend the classes, and do the work. Athletes that come to college on full ride athletic scholarships are focused on performing well week in and week out in order to maintain their athletic scholarship, which can have a negative impact on the main focus, school work. "The main problem with paying student-athletes is that it is not the college's primary function. The primary function of academic institutions is to educate, and not to hire student-athletes for their contributions on the basketball court or football field" (Krikor Meshefejian).

The counter argument to this from the opposition is of course that the NCAA made the term student-athlete up as a way to maintain the amateurism of collegiate sports. "Ironically, the NCAA invented the term "student-athlete" in support of its insistence that college football and basketball players are students and amateur athletes, not employees of their colleges who are entitled to workers' compensation when injured on the job" (Brian Porto). This is flawed however, because you risk injury at every level of the game, so why should collegiate athletes be entitled to workers' compensation as Brian Porto suggests? Athletes that compete at the college level still have to attend classes and do work. They are in fact still students. 

A proposed idea to improve academic success is to eliminate athletic scholarships in the hopes that "student"-athletes will become dedicated to their academics to receive more money in the form of academic scholarships. "One of the steps that needs to be taken is to eliminate athletic scholarships in favor of the institutional need-based aid that is available to all students. While this would result in some athletes receiving less money, it would actually empower them in their ability to get a college education because they would no longer find themselves beholden to coaches and athletic departments" (John R. Gerdy). While scholarships are not exactly considered "getting paid" in the sense that it's not a paycheck or cash, it is still a form of payment for the student athletes because it helps pay for their attendance at the university. The suggestion of eliminating athletic scholarships would allow student to focus more on school work and force them maintain that scholarship through academic consistency. The result of this is that athletes will have better grades and better all-around academics. 

Although taking away athletic scholarships seems like a smart idea to better promote and emphasize academics, some would argue that instead the NCAA should pay its athletes. The thinking behind it is that by paying athletes in college there would be an incentive for them to stay all four years, and not feel pressured to go pro to pay back their school loans or other debt. "There are also student-athletes who have to leave school early because they do not have enough money to continue, or to pay their bills and leaving school for a career in professional sports is an easy way of making money. The argument is that if student-athletes get paid, they will remain in school and complete their education" (Krikor Meshefejian). If students were to stay in school and finish, they would still be able to go pro and leave school to pursue their dream, but when their career is over they would have a degree that would make them more marketable in the real world if they choose to pursue a job in another career. Another advantage to student athletes to staying in school longer through incentives such as paying them would also increase the graduation rate of the college. This in turn may help bring in new recruits because they will be able to take notice in the increased graduation rates and feel compelled to finish school. The only problem with this thinking is, as a twenty-one year old kid, a couple million or even six figure check is more than any college will ever be able to pay. Therefore, while some student athletes may complete school under these conditions, most will probably take a bigger pay check and go pro anyways. The argument here is wishful thinking.

As a way to promote the student side of the student athlete model, the NCAA has a rule in place in which teams must meet certain academic requirements to maintain eligibility. In the online article "Do the Homework, Then You Can Play: Temple Has a New Way to Keep Student-Athletes Eligible, and, More Important, Educated," Temple is being penalized in the form of lost athletic scholarships for failing to meet these requirements. Athletes are at risk because they aren't doing well in school. This article suggests that comes as a direct result of being a collegiate athlete. The system currently in place for the NCAA is set in a way to promote only the athletic side of the student athlete model. There seems to be more of an emphasis on TV deals and bringing in money for the NCAA than there is on education. This serves as an argument against paying athletes, because if student athletes are already struggling academically, how can they be expected to focus on school when they are worrying about their performance and getting paid off it? 

The most interesting argument in favor of paying college players is that it would stop illegal under the table transactions from happening. What this means is perks and under the table money transactions between athletes and boosters would hopefully not happen as much. "NCAA rules prohibit them from sharing legally, but some do so illegally. In a 1989 survey of professional football players, 31 percent of the respondents admitted to having accepted illegal payments during their college careers, and 48 percent of the respondents said that they knew of other athletes who took such payments during college. Former North Carolina State University basketball player Charles Shackleford, who left school in favor of the NBA after his junior season, admitted to having accepted approximately $65,000 in illegal payments during his three years in Raleigh" (Brian Porto). While paying college athletes may help reduce the amount of money players illegally accept under the table, I don't think it would completely stop it from happening. For some players, what the NCAA were to pay them would not be enough and there would still be under the table transactions. 

The issue of paying athletes fair compensation for the money they bring in for the NCAA will continue to be a discussion amongst experts. However, most will stand by the evidence that athletes should not be paid. Collegiate sports as we currently know it would cease because athletes would no longer be thought of as amateurs, but rather, professionals. Smaller schools would suffer greatly because they wouldn't be able to afford to pay players, and the talent gap would be huge, leaving bigger schools with the best players. Another negative effect of paying athletes would be the decline in academics. Players would be focused more on playing well week in and week out and have less of a focus and emphasis on academics. By doing away with athletic scholarships, and not paying athletes academics would hopefully improve, as well as graduation rates.

Although collegiate athletes bring in a ton of money for the NCAA, we're talking billions of dollars, they can't see any of that money. It's just not feasible to pay college athletes. The main thing people need to realize is that college sports, at least football and basketball, are modeled professionally in the sense that they want to promote the big name athletes and the big name sports. Athletes in college however, aren't professionals they're students. People tend to think of some of these athletes as professional, because of how good they are, but this is not the case. This idea needs to be reformed in order to maintain the spirt and competition of college athletics. Also, the money the NCAA would be paying athletes, could go toward improving education and academia. New facilities could be built, new professors hired, improvements to campus are all more important than paying athletes and putting such a heavy emphasis on sports. 
Tatum, Kevin "Do the Homework, Then You Can Play: Temple Has a New Way to Keep Student-Athletes Eligible, and, More Important, Educated," Philadelphia Inquirer, November 10, 2006. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.

