The question of whether college athletes should be paid has been a question surrounding the sports world since the beginning of college sports. But it has become a very controversial topic within the last twenty years. Every few years a headline story comes up, such as when Cam Newton was accused of being paid illegally. Some argue that athletes should be paid because the NCAA and universities are exploiting them, and making millions off their backs. Others would reason that by paying these athletes, they would not be tempted to accept illegal payments or gamble. The other side would argue that the student athletes are getting a free education plus lots of amenities, therefore they are basically being paid, just not directly to their pockets. Colleges used to hand out guaranteed four year scholarships, but in the 1980's they changed it to a one year renewable scholarship. This meant that the athlete had to play well all year to make sure the coach would reward them with a scholarship for the following year. Student athletes should not be paid, but scholarships must be a four year guaranteed grant to help protect these athletes who are being exploited. 

One reason student athletes should not be paid is they are there for the education, not to be making a profit. In an article, "Notre Dame President Doesn't Support Paying Athletes" by Christopher Chavez, Notre Dame's president says, "Our relationship to these young people is to educate them, to help them grow."  Universities and colleges' jobs are to educate men and women at a higher degree, so students can go on and have successful careers. Students can choose to play a sport if they are good enough for their college, but that is not the main reason they are there. Yes, some students excel in their sport and go to college as part of the process to make it to the professional level. More than 460,000 students compete as NCAA athletes, but for the major sports less than 10% in each sport go on to the professional level. According to the NCAA, only 1.6% of football players go pro after college. This means the other 98.4% of football players in the NCAA need a college education to find a successful career. The other issue is that the more athletes being recruited, the less spots available for regular students wanting to go to that college. This means athletes should be able to take more of an advantage of being in college and work towards getting a degree. 

Additionally, college athletes should not be paid because universities and colleges are already spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on their athletes. About 53% of student athletes have some scholarship money given to them according to the NCAA. Even if a college athlete is not on scholarship, they receive many benefits such as free meal plans, clothes, tutors, top coaches, books, and housing. College sports also help provide athletes with name recognition. This will help them once they are out of college looking for a job. Student athletes are already getting many benefits that regular students may not. 

Critics that say college athletes should be paid have their reasons. One is that if student athletes are paid, then they would not be tempted to take illegal payments or gamble. Some believe that college athletes do this because they feel they are being cheated by the NCAA. So if they were to be paid it would solve that problem. In an article by Brian Porto, about a study done by the University of Michigan, they found that, "It is not uncommon for college football and basketball players to try to exploit their athletic status for financial gain through gambling." There are many headline stories of star college athletes accepting illegal payments, such as Cam Newton and Reggie Bush. It is hard to deny there is a problem with gambling and accepting illegal payments by student athletes. 

Others might say college athletes should be paid because they are treated like employees of the university. There are many problems with student athletes. One is they could technically be employees, however one major problem is as Porto puts it, "The denial of workers' compensation benefits, or a comparable alternatives, to athletes who have suffered serious injuries while playing for their colleges." Athletes are pretty much left all by themselves to pay for their injuries, but as an employee, not only would the student athletes be paid, but there would have to be workers compensation. 

One other problem is athletic departments seem to neglect the student athlete's academic interests. Athletes struggle to balance school and sports, and never seem to have enough time to study for their classes between training and practices. If athletic directors do not see these athletes as students, then maybe they should not be students and receive money instead. 

Even though college athletes should not be paid there is a major flaw in the NCAA, which could help protect the athletes and solve the many problems of college athletes not being paid. Scholarships for the NCAA athletes have become a one year renewable scholarship. This means college coaches can revoke the scholarship given to an athlete after any year an athlete is at the college. They can basically be fired, which means right now they could be considered employees. I propose that the NCAA should change the scholarships to a guaranteed four years if the college athlete chooses to stay those four years, and they must take responsibility for these athletes by helping them academically. Of course the athlete must maintain a certain GPA and meet the requirements of any other student on scholarships.  

Athletic grants started in 1956 as a four year guaranteed scholarship. But in 1973 the NCAA decided to take away four year scholarships, and make them one year renewable grants. Instead of the scholarship being in the hands of the academic office, it is the coaches who decide whether the athlete gets to stay on the scholarship or not. If a player who is on scholarship has a bad year or gets injured they usually lose the scholarship. And more times than not that means the athlete cannot afford to finish their college education. This forced student athletes to be "athletes" first and "students" second.  Even "the President said, 'if you offer a scholarship to a kid coming into school, that scholarship sticks, no matter what.'" (Congressional digest). Colleges need to take more responsibility for their students and make sure they have the ability to get a college degree. 

If an athlete is injured and can no longer perform the way the coaches want them to, they will lose their scholarship. Not only does the athlete have to pay for college now, they have to pay for all the medical bills that come with the injury. But what if once the student athlete is offered the scholarship they are guaranteed four years of education no matter what happens on the field or court? Once a college has decided to offer an athlete an athletic scholarship, then they should be responsible for that athlete. So in the case where an athlete gets seriously injured, the college should pay for the expenses. Congressional Digest wrote an article about protecting student athletes, and they found that the Northwestern University football players over ten years made the school over 235 million in revenue. This means colleges can afford to at least cover their athlete's medical bills. Karen Hartman was a woman basketball player who was on scholarship her first three years at the university but what happened going into her senior year is absurd. In her article, "The Most Evil Thing About College Sports" she writes, "I was told I could try out, but all of the spaces on the team were full and there was no scholarship money left." After it was already too late to try to transfer to another school, she was told her scholarship for her senior year would be revoked. This is just one example of how the one year renewable scholarships can hurt student athletes instead of help. 

Not only do scholarships need to be a guaranteed four years, but the hours an athlete spends a week needs to be regulated. At Northwestern University football players spend about 50 to 60 hours per week on football related activities (D'Aquila & Rudolph). Players are expected by the NCAA to maintain a certain GPA, while having almost a full time job. In an interview at Super Bowl 49, Richard Sherman was asked, "Do you feel that college athletes are given the time needed to take advantage of their free education?" He responded by saying no, it was almost impossible to go to team workouts in the morning then classes and if he was lucky something to eat for lunch then spend until about 8 o'clock at night with team meetings and practice (Roger Sherman.) By then he still had to do study for all his classes. This has become a major problem. Peter and Patricia Adler followed a NCAA basketball team for four years. They found that, "Contrary to popular belief, most athletes enter college with optimistic and idealistic goals and attitudes about their impending academic careers. However, their athletic, social, and classroom experiences lead them to become progressively detached from academics." Most athletes are excited to start their college careers, but after having to try to balance their sport, classes and their social life, it took a toll on them and they could not focus in the classroom. College is for learning but because of their impossible schedule, student athletes are forced to focus less on academics and more on their sport.

If it makes economic sense to pay college athletes, then it could make sense to make more four year guaranteed scholarships. In an article by Rodney Fort, he argues that players should be paid for four major economic reasons. The first is he says the money is there but it just has to be spent differently. The second reason is athletic departments can cut spending in some areas that are being overpaid relative to their MRP (marginal revenue product or the amount of revenue a player creates). The third he wrote is that players already go to the college where they are most highly valued anyways so it would not matter who was offering more scholarship money. Finally he said athletes should be paid just like any other employment market (Rodney Fort). But just like it is now, if the college is recruiting five star athlete and a three star athlete, he five star athlete is going to be offered a full ride, whereas the three star athlete might be offered only half tuition.  People argue that there is not enough money to pay for these scholarships. But if there is enough money to pay athletes directly to their pockets, there will be enough money to protect these athletes from injury costs and scholarships. 

Another reason for paying college athletes is that some of them have complained that they do not have enough money to pay for necessities. If the athlete is offered a "full ride" then their scholarship should cover the schools listed "cost of attendance." Ramogi Huma, who formed the National College Players Association, had set ten goals that the NCPA needed to change about college sports. One of them being to raise scholarships to help pay for a college students necessities. He said, "A relatively small percentage of post-season revenues can be used to assist universities in providing scholarships that cover costs." This would be a very doable small change in scholarships and would help student athletes a lot.  

In the end colleges and universities should be concerned about their students getting a degree and being better prepared for the workforce. Just because they are student athletes should not change anything. Athletes need to be better protected so they have the same opportunity as any other student on scholarships. As long as the athlete can maintain a certain GPA and has no legal issues through the school or government, they should be guaranteed a four year scholarship. This means the necessities to be a student are covered for. If the hours the college athletes are allowed to be doing activities for their sport are limited, then they can have more time to study and work towards their degree. For the people who say colleges are barely breaking even and cannot afford to increase scholarships, they are wrong. Rodney Fort did research on this and found that, "Universities allow athletic departments to keep all excess revenues on an updated bias during any given budget period." Athletic departments are investing in the football and basketball teams at a higher rate than their performance makes. So if the money is spent differently than they can afford to raise scholarships and help pay for the medical costs of their athletes' injuries. College athletes are being exploited. People all around them are making millions based off their work and performance. Something must be done to protect these athletes. I believe guaranteed four year scholarships could solve many of the problems associated with why people say student athletes should be paid. 

