          For the longest time I believed college athletes only receiving a free education for the work they put forward on the field was very fair and acceptable.  Further investigation has opened up my mind to this problem.  It has been a problem since college athletics first started, but recently it has become a big enough issue that I am finding an answer for.  The Division Istudent athletes need to be paid for the work they are putting forward on behalf of their respective universities.  It is unacceptable that there are fantastic student athletes out there giving it their all everyday who are struggling to pay for everyday activities and the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) is doing nothing about it.  If the athletes are paid it will solve other problems as well.  It will persuade players to stay in college longer and possibly even graduate with a degree.  It will also allow students to profit off of themselves by signing a few autographs.  It is bad enough that they are not being paid, but it is extremely difficult to say there is nothing wrong while the coaches and NCAA directors are making millions.  The NCAA is an 11 billion dollar industry and the kids who supply the entertainment would never know this was the case because they do not see any of the money.  It is crucial that college athletes need to be treated as employees of the university as opposed to amateurs.

           An amateur is defined as "one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science" (Merriam-Webster).  It is very ignorant to say that the student-athletes competing in college athletics these days are "lacking in experience."  These college basketball and football players are competing at the top of their ability and entertaining millions of people every time they touch the field.  The NCAA does not see a problem with not paying the athletes because they are still considered amateurs.  As John Oliver says,  "The NCAA doesn't pay athletes because they consider them amateurs. The NCAA considers them amateurs because they don't get paid" (Oliver).  The problem with this is there is a new era of college athletes.  Athletes who are making significant revenues for their colleges, entertaining millions while making a name for themselves and this is something the NCAA needs to account for.  

Oliver makes a strong statement about the environment of the practices and how the players are treated.  He shows clips of big time coaches screaming at their players for not performing to the best of their ability.  A lot of the time the coaches are cursing and using derogatory terms.  Obviously this does not account for all of the coaches in the NCAA but it still shows the incredible standards these players have to meet and the amount of pressure on them to perform.  In one of the interviews with ex college basketball star Jalen Rose, he explains how many of the players are trying just keep the lights on for their mother while trying to play college basketball.  Often the reason for the players getting in trouble for not abiding by their contract is because they are trying to help their family with money.  He later says "It must be hard to shoot 'lights out' while your mother is just trying to keep her lights on" (Oliver).   

           As with any issue, there are people who believe otherwise.  Horace Mitchell, president of California State University-Bakersfield, and on the NCAA Division I Board of Directors, claims that there is no problem with student-athletes not being paid.  He states, "Student-athletes are amateurs who choose to participate in intercollegiate athletics as a part of their educational experience" (Mitchell).  Mitchell is one of the firm believers in using the term "amateur" to describe the college athletes.  As explained before, one can no longer use this term to describe an athlete playing on this level.  In the past you may have been able to get away with saying that they were lacking in experience, but now these players have been playing for most of their lives to get to the position they are in.  Furthermore, he recognizes the fact that they do not have enough money to live on an everyday basis by saying, "Many student-athletes do not have the opportunity to earn income to cover those expenses or to afford simple social outings with friends, an important component of college life, well-being, and holistic development" (Mitchell).  The fact that Mitchell, someone who opposes paying athletes sees something wrong with what they are doing by only giving scholarship money proves there is a big problem at stake and the NCAA needs to do something about it.  

           A huge issue within all of this is that many of the student athletes are very poor.  In Marc Edelman's article, "Should College Student-Athletes Be Paid?," he states, "A 2011 report entitled "The Price of Poverty in Big Time College Sport" confirms that 85 percent of college athletes on scholarship live below the poverty line" (Edelman).  When I read this I was astonished.  It is unacceptable to think it is okay that kids who are coming in already poor should push their bodies to the limit to receive nothing in return.  In a video, "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: The NCAA (HBO)" an interview with the University of Connecticut basketball star Shabazz Napier is shown.  In the interview, Napier says "there are hungry nights that I go to bed and I am starving."  This video was recorded in 2014 and thankfully there has been something done about it since then so this is a step in the right direction for the NCAA.  Now the athletes meals are taken care of by the university so that the players do not have to have nights without food.  This shows the NCAA sees something wrong with their system that is currently in place, and they are willing to make revisions to make sure the players are treated well.  The problem right now is that there is not enough awareness about this issue.  It is the recognition of a problem that is the first step to solving any issue and I think it is a small step towards paying athletes but definitely an important one.

           It is not like the NCAA and the universities do not have the money to pay the athletes.  According to Marc Edelman, "The college sports industry generates $11 billion in annual revenues" (Edelman).  That's not all. He goes on to say that  "The highest paid public employee in 40 of the 50 U.S. states is the state university's head football or basketball coach" (Edelman).  So if someone like Mark Emmert (President of the NCAA) says that it is not in the budget to pay student athletes and the colleges cannot afford it, you can look to the numbers.  These student-athletes are seeing money fly by their faces for the work they are putting in every day.  They are doing all of this to have a millionaire coach who does not want them to see any of the money yell in their face day after day.  In a recent interview with Clemson University football coach Dabo Swinney who makes 3 million dollars a year he says, "As far as paying college athletes ... that's where you lose me ... there is enough entitlement in this world as it is" (Oliver).  One would think that coaches like Swinney would want the best for their players and allow them to make some money.  Until you look at the reality outcome of it.  If the athletes are paid then this could mean he would have to take a pay cut.  In that case of course he would say he does not want his players to be paid.  After all, money is power.

    The amount of money that these kids busting their asses, make for the NCAA is sickening.  Fans are buying jerseys of the players, and the money is pocketed by the university.  The games are shown on live television in primetime for millions to watch and the money is pocketed by the NCAA.  There are so many different incoming sources of revenue that it makes it look really guilty of the NCAA to not give some of the money to the people putting on the show.  Just a fraction of the 11 billion dollars is all that is necessary to help the student-athletes.  According to Vice Sports, the March Madness tournament made around 700 million dollars for the NCAA.  If the money was split between the NCAA and the players who made it to the tournament, each player would receive about $400,000.  Now, one might say that there is no way that it is fair to split it 50/50, but NFL players get 55 percent of the money coming from television.  So, in reality this is not all that far off.  To me, $400,000 dollars is a lot for a college athlete so there is plenty of room to negotiate a deal out that works for both sides.

         Not only would paying student-athletes be the moral right thing to do but it could also make the entertainment of college sports that much better.  Right now, many college athletes want to get to the next level as fast as they can so that they can make money to pay for themselves and possibly even their families.  "A Fair Day's Pay for a Fair Day's Work," an article by Ramogi Huma of US News has a proposal that could change college sports for the better.  He suggests that "...all athletes should be allowed to earn money from commercial endorsements (like their schools), which could be put in the trust fund. These reforms would increase graduation rates and decrease violations, which should be prioritized" (Huma).  Huma is right, graduation rates and a decrease in violations should be something that the NCAA should be trying to enforce.  So, say an athlete does a signing with fans or jerseys are made with the player's name on the back, the money generated from the signings would be put into a fund that is obtainable by the athletes upon graduation.  If the athletes are being paid they will want to stay longer to be able to obtain that trust fund.  As a result of staying in college longer, more talent will arise.  No longer will high school athletes want to go to college to play one year of basketball and then go directly to the NBA (National Basketball Association).  Imagine how the athletes would feel also, it would give them more incentive to play well and get public recognition.  I believe Huma's proposal to have a trust fund put in place for the players that is accessible when they graduate, is a great idea and it is one that needs to be looked into by the NCAA.  

There could be a bigger problem for the NCAA behind all of this.  It is the legality of the issue.  According to Marc Edelman of Zicklin School of Business, "Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, in pertinent part, states that 'every contract, combination or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce is declared to be illegal.' ... any agreement among NCAA members to prohibit the pay of student-athletes represents a form of wage fixing that likely violates antitrust law" (Edelman).  This quote is saying, whether the NCAA wants to pay its athletes or not, it could be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  These athletes are technically under a contract that has a "restraint of trade or commerce."  Now, one could say that the athletes are getting an education in return for the work and labor they are putting out, but even this has its flaws.  Many of the student-athletes are enrolled in what are referred to as "paper classes," these are classes that they are forced to take in order to be academically eligible to play their sport.  So an athlete who has a grade point average less than a 2.0 in the spring can suddenly have a 3.0 in the fall to play football because they are enrolled in classes that do not apply to their major whatsoever but they are worth an easy A (Oliver).

           An opposing argument is that the college student-athletes do not need to be paid because they will make enough money when they go professional.  Thomas Palaima of chronicle.com states, "There are about 400,000 student athletes nationwide, and 99.5 percent of them will spend their lives doing something other than playing professional sports" (Palaima).  So, the 99.5 percent of the athletes that are not making money in the pros are stuck out in the real world with a terrible education that was so kindly given to them by the universities that just wanted them to get their sports team more recognition.  If the student-athletes were getting a quality education that they would be able to use in the case that they do not make it to the next level I might agree that they do not need to be paid.  In reality they are being forced through classes that they most likely do not understand and they still end up barely making it by.

           Now if this is not enough, maybe the NCAA can figure out a way to make this fair without paying them directly.  This would be considered the Olympic Model of a contract.  \ In this model, it would allow the athletes to get their own agent and endorsements.  For example, Ohio State University's star athlete Braxton Miller would be allowed to receive a sponsorship from a company like Nike.  This would allow Miller to be paid without the NCAA having to take part in any of it.  I believe the Olympic Model would be one of the fairest ways to go about this issue.  Also this would allow Miller to go into downtown Columbus, Ohio and sign a few autographs for fans and make some money on the side.  This would lead to fans showing up to the games wanting to see the guy who they just got an autograph from, play.  Many of these solutions have positive impacts as well, if the players can get paid for signing autographs, it will make them want to get more involved with the community.  As of now if a player is found profiting off of his name he will face a penalty.  In my opinion this is unfair for the NCAA to take a player's identity and tell them that they now own it and if you are found profiting off of it you will be suspended.

    College student-athletes need to be treated as employees of the university as opposed to amateurs.  As stated, you cannot logically look at what a college football or basketball player is doing on the field and say that they are lacking experience.  It is a different day in age than when these rules regarding paying athletes were put in place.  The student-athletes of this generation are loaded with talent, and sadly not so fortunate with the money.  I am not going to say that I have a black and white answer for the problem, but due to my research, it is evident that the student-athletes can no longer follow the same rules that have been in play for years.  I have suggested a few different solutions that I believe could solve this problem and be fair for both sides of the argument.  In my opinion, the best option would be Ragomi Huma's idea of a trust fund put into place for the players that is available for them when they graduate.  This is the most even solution for both sides.   If the NCAA does not do something about this growing issue, they will continue to find allegations against students getting extra (illegal) help from their coaches and universities who are morally just trying to do the right thing.  It is not right that people who are trying to help others are being penalized for what they are doing.  This is wrong.
