The thrilling Alabama -- Clemson title game this year brought in millions of dollars for tons of people-other than the players. When watching a college football or basketball game it is obvious that the athletes dedicate a vast majority of their day to becoming the best competitor for their respected sport. College athletes need to train consistently to develop the speed, agility and strength required to maintain the expectations set forth by the college, fans, sponsors and television. After watching these talented individuals play, many people wonder why these student athletes don't get compensated for their work. The universities and the NCAA as a whole are cashing out from these players and the sports that they play. College athletics has become a very lucrative business, but not everyone involved receives an equitable payout. (Yankah) When researching the rules and regulations that the NCAA enforces it becomes obvious that the NCAA is taking advantage of the student athletes. In my opinion, the NCAA holds back student athletes from opportunities that could benefit their families and their own futures. I think that if people want to pay these student athletes for their services, including signed autographs or support from boosters, than they should be allowed to without a punishment from the NCAA. While I do support the NCAA rule regarding college athletes, of any level or sport, which states that athletes should not receive a salary from the school they play for, I do believe athletes should be free to profit from their personal "Name, Image and Likeness "or their NIL.

College athletes have been violating the NCAA rules and sanctions ever since this organization was created by Teddy Roosevelt and company in 1906. Teddy Roosevelt set up the NCAA for the safety of young athletes that were playing the game in the early 20th century. During this time football was in danger of becoming abolished because it was becoming too dangerous for people to play. During the 1905 season, 18 college players ended up dying during the football games. (Klein) The NCAA was set up to protect athletes. The rules and sanctions set in place were to benefit the college athletes and to keep the amateur status intact for college athletics. Inside Higher Education reported that 53 of 120 FBS were caught violating NCAA rules between 2001 through 2010. (Lederman) These violations vary, but include college athletes hiring sport agents and college athletes taking improper benefits from the school's boosters.  

Former Auburn Basketball great and NBA Hall of Famer Charles Barkley said: "I got money from agents when I was in college and I went in the '80s. A bunch of players -- most of the players I know -- borrowed money from agents. The colleges don't give us anything. If they give us a pair of sneakers, they get in trouble. Why can't an agent lend me some money and I'll pay him back when I graduate? These agents are well, well known. They've been giving college kids money for 30 years," (Segrest) This quote is eye opening to say the least. It seems as though college athletes have been breaking these ridiculous rules set up by the NCAA for years on end. It also seems the NCAA knows that these rules are being broken, but choose not to change the rules. By allowing student athletes to profit from their name, image or likeness, schools would ultimately lower the amount of NCAA sanctions student athletes end up breaking while going to school.

Not only have student athletes circumvented the rules. Universities and boosters associated with universities have been disregarding the NCAA rules and regulations for quite some time now. The most notorious incident was back in the early 2000's at the University of Miami.  A booster named Nevin Shapiro countlessly gave improper benefits to University of Miami students from 2002 to 2010. Shapiro was able to make over $930 million in an elaborate Ponzi scheme. He then used this money to help out the University of Miami in any way he thought could help out the team. He was able to make real connections with the players on the Miami team and would go out and spend as much money as the players wanted doing whatever they really wanted to do in Miami Florida. Nevin Shapiro claims to have given out $2 million in improper benefits to 72 basketball and football players and coaches. As a result of these sanctions the NCAA heavily punished the University of Miami for allowing Nevin Shapiro to do what he did from 2002 to 2010.(Axon) The University of Miami is not the only school that has allowed boosters to give players improper benefits. However, it is one of the biggest scandals to come out of college athletics and serves as a reminder to all of the possible ways the rules can be evaded.

There are many cases that have been brought to trial relating to compensation and the college athlete. The most infamous court case related to this issue is the O'Bannon vs. NCAA court case. This trial took place from June 9 to June 27, 2014 with the decision of this trial made by the judge, Claudia Wilken, on August 8, 2014. Ed O'Bannon played for the UCLA Bruins from 1991 to 1995.His UCLA Bruins team won the 1995 national title game and Ed O'Bannon was named the NCAA Final Four Most Outstanding Player Award for his performance in the NCAA final four in 1995. Many years later Ed O'Bannon saw his likeness from the 1995 UCLA Bruins team on the popular EA Sports game NCAA March Madness. This image was used without his permission. He argued that the game used his likeness. A player in the video game had Ed O'Bannon's jersey number 31, played the power forward position-the position O'Bannon played- and had his same height, weight, hair style, skin tone, and left handed shot type. He argued that the NCAA use of the images of its former student athletes for commercial use is unfair to the athletes.(Karcher, 135-137)

His main point made during this trial was that after graduation from college, a former student athlete should be entitled to compensation for the NCAA's commercial use of a person's likeness or image. Some of the greatest basketball players to ever play the game, Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell, are among the 20 plaintiffs that have joined O'Bannon in his court case against the NCAA. The final verdict found by Claudia Wilken was that the NCAA violated antitrust laws. She ordered that colleges be permitted to offer full cost of attendance scholarships that covers expenses that were not in place in NCAA scholarships. She also ordered that colleges can place up to $5,000 in a trust fund for each year the athlete played for the school.(Lush)

This ruling has had a huge impact on the NCAA as a whole because it questions the integrity of college sport's amateur status. However, this ruling has already been challenged.

In September of 2015, this case was brought to appeal. The NCAA continues to fight to limit the rights given to student athletes. In this most recent court case, the NCAA came out ahead. This case reiterated the fact that student athletes receive a free college attendance. The price for education includes the use of the players name, image and likeness. Within the courts, this debate continues to divide. The new ruling took away the $5,000 dollars per year.(Sanchez)  According to the New York Times article by Mark Tracy and Ben Straus, it was argued that "The Rule of Reason requires that the N.C.A.A. permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student-athletes. It does not require more." This new twist in the case allows the NCAA to "use amateurism as a justification in antitrust cases."  Additionally, this court ruling stresses that college athletes should not be paid on top of the cost of attendance. (Tracy) The argument continues on both sides. These court cases hinge on the fact that college athletes are not professionals and should not be compensated.  Many argue that the face of college athletics has changed. The business model used in the past has morphed into a model much more closely resembling professional sports. As colleges continue to bring in crowds and money, can the amateur status continue to be upheld? (Litan) Even the courts are divided on this issue. If so many educated people can't agree on the policy, it should be time to reevaluate this issue to compromise on a fair way to disperse the money made in college athletics. The NIL policy would be one way to do this. 

Student athletes ultimately have the very difficult task of trying to balance classes, their sport and a social life on a daily basis. For many college students it's hard to find time to work on academics and squeeze in a bit of fun and relaxation. Many college students couldn't even imagine having to also work on a sport for hours of the day. That is exactly what college athletes have to do in their everyday life and it's difficult for them to find any real spare time on their hands. Some college athletes come from low income families and have no financial flexibility to spend on anything but the necessities. If colleges don't compensate the players for their hard work and dedication that they pour out on the field or court then how are these athletes supposed to make extra spending money to spend on things they need for their everyday life. The reality is that it's just way too much to handle in one day for college athletes and they have little to no time to go out and try and work a job on top of all the other things they have to do in their busy schedules. While many argue against compensating these athletes the harsh reality is that some of the athletes truly need extra money just to have money to buy essential things like buying groceries for the week.

Former UCLA football player Donnie Edwards went onto a radio show and talked about "how hard it is for student-athletes to buy enough food under the current scholarship system". Shortly after this radio conversation when Donnie Edwards got home he found about $150 worth of groceries left on his front doorstep. Edwards was then suspended by the NCAA for taking the groceries that were generously given to him presumably by a booster for UCLA.(Springer)The big question from this incident is why Donnie Edwards should get punished by the NCAA for doing something that any college student would do in the same situation.  If I were to come back from my classes to find $150 worth of groceries sitting on my doorstep, I would be delighted and take the groceries without a second thought. Student athletes face difficult choices each day. For many of these young athletes, they have no spending money. They watch fellow students with jobs and ways to make money, yet they can't find the time for this between classes, practice and games. By allowing an athlete to make some money off of their name, image, or likeness, they could have some spending money during their college years.

The Pac-12 has submitted a proposal to allow athletes to use their name, image and likeness. One of the arguments raised by deputy commissioner Jamie Zaninovich reveals, "We run into a bunch of situations where kids wants to write books on something completely unrelated to their athletic experience or develop an app that has nothing to do with athletics, and they have to establish an alias and it doesn't make intuitive sense." (Solomon)  The proposals that are on the table would limit athletes to having a way to make money using their name. The student athlete could still not ask for money for autographs or be paid for their time dedicated to playing the sport. This proposal is being reviewed and discussed by all of the college leagues, but there are many who are fighting these ideas.

Although there are many great reasons why colleges should pay student athletes, many people disagree with that view. Some believe colleges already give their student athletes scholarships and that should be more than enough for these athletes. Ekow Yankah, a professor from Cardozo School of Law, argues that a scholarship to a school of the athletes choosing is worth a lot of money and the players don't need to be compensated on top of the scholarship.  Yankah had an idea to deal with college students that believe they should be compensated for their work on the field. He said that professional sports leagues like the NFL should develop a similar system to the minor leagues for the MLB or the developmental league that the NBA currently has in place. He said we should get rid of some of the rules set up by the NCAA. In particular they should reevaluate the rule that makes college football players play three years before being draft eligible to make the jump to the NFL and the one and done rule that college basketball has in place.(Yankah) This idea would allow potential college football and basketball stars to skip going to college all together and jump directly to their respected professional sport league.         

Although Yankah does make some good points in his arguments, I believe his argument is out of date and doesn't correlate to college athletics now a days. His main point is trying to argue that college athletics is trying to maintain their amateur status. If you look at college athletics nowadays there really isn't much about it that makes you think that it still holds the amateur status. The NCAA just agreed to a 14 year broadcasting deal with CBS Sports worth more than 10.8 billion dollars to allow the network to broadcast all NCAA men's basketball tournament games. The average college football head coach makes $1.64 million dollars, with the great coaches like Nick Saban making $7.08 million dollars per year to be the head coach of the Alabama football team. With all these outrageously high numbers what really makes college sports hold the amateur status? The answer is that the only people not making money and keeping the amateur status around for college athletes is the actual athletes themselves who generate millions of dollars for the NCAA, their schools, and coaches.(Edelman)  Yet, the only people that don't receive any of the compensation is the actual athletes themselves.

Even among college athletes themselves, there is a great deal of conversations and disagreement around the debate. Many college athletes agree with the NCAA rules and argue against paying college athletes to try and preserve the amateur status that comes along with college athletics. Dave Sobolewski, a basketball player from Northwestern University does not feel that athletes should be offered additional compensation. He has stated that, ""I think it's perfectly fair. I think college athletics should focus on the student-athletes. We're still amateurs. We're not professionals. Our job is to be students."(Hopkins)  However, many other student athletes disagree. Student athletes are routinely asked to sign agreements that prevent them from earning any money while in college. Young stars soon realize the mistake they have made by signing away these rights. While initially a player may find it flattering to see his name used in a game, it soon can become disheartening. Once the athlete realizes how much money is being made on this name, and how little he is receiving, it is too late to change. Even colleges that are not in the bigger leagues are now requiring athletes to sign waivers. Some of these waivers state that the athlete gives away their NIL rights forever. (Hopkins)  Most athletes sign the waivers because they want to play and are receiving a scholarship to the school. However, once they realize that they are not going to make any money from something that belongs to them, the athlete has not recourse.

The NCAA generates millions of dollars every year from college basketball and football alone. With college athletes dedicating so much of their time and effort into these sports that generate so much money why is it that these athletes don't receive any compensation for their work? Although it would be extremely difficult for college athletes to be paid by their colleges I do believe that college athletes should be able to use their NIL- or their name, image, and likeness to make a profit. This could include allowing athletes to profit by appearing in commercials and signing autographs. College athletics is slowly losing its amateur status. Lucrative deals help the NCAA and colleges make exuberant amounts of money. It is time that people start realizing this so that we can make the system fairer for everyone involved. Currently, the NCAA is a top heavy system that really only benefits the NCAA as a whole and the colleges and universities. The people who we pay millions of dollars to watch get a college education, but do not get any share of the monetary benefits that they bring into the system. Student athletes try to follow the rules, but they are so strict that it is difficult. Time and time again, student athletes, boosters, and colleges are caught breaking a rule related to student compensation. Many students, particularly those from poorer families, are forced to try to hold a job or live on much less than most in order to survive in college. Ultimately, I believe it is time people see the NCAA rules currently are not working and for changes to be made to bring some equity for all parties.

Tim: I don't have a whole lot of comments on the body of your essay  because the most pressing issue is the lack of secondary sources in your paper. Or citation at all. There are whole swaths of your paper that you don't cite your sources--which defeats the purpose of a researched argument paper. Or, alternatively, you mention a source and don't quote them, you just paraphrase their argument when it would be easier for you to quote. I can't give you higher than a C because you don't really engage with your sources on the appropriate level, though your argument is fine. I will say I'm not convinced by the NIL thing because it obviously favors certain student-athletes. 

