College athletes make up about 28 percent of all students in the United States, which is a high percentage. The payment of college athletes has been a popular argument not only in the sporting world, but also in normal every day conversations as well. With this being said, college athletics are under the division and organization called the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The NCAA is the largest non-profit organization in the country, and maybe even the entire world. The beauty of the game shows in the NCAA because of how the players play for the love of the game and a true desire to turn professional. This popular debate is divided by those who believe the athletes should be paid, and those who don't. Recently, the court of law cracked down on the NCAA, declaring a law that states the NCAA cannot pay student athletes because of their amateurism at the collegiate level. Schools like Northwestern have recently tried to form a union to get student athletes paid, but it ultimately failed. Many former collegiate athletes, such as Desmond Howard of Michigan, believe student athletes deserve to be paid due to the rigorous hours of practicing and film study. The issue with paying athletes is that they already receive scholarships and academic aid to help them complete their college athletic experience. College athletes should not receive any sort of pay because they have been officially labeled as amateurs, receive scholarships and financial aid, are used as a form of income for the business side of the NCAA, and it would cause a huge ruckus in payroll and question player equality. In order to end this debate, all NCAA players should receive the same four year scholarship and the players who need more academic aid should receive it. 

Recently, the court of law claimed that student athletes in the NCAA are considered amateurs in the year 2016 (Roberts 1). The NCAA serves as a stepping stone association for collegiate athletes to show off their skills for professional teams to scout them on. In an article by Daniel Roberts, the law struck down on the NCAA and claimed the athletes can't be paid the 5,000-dollar minimum that was up for discussion. The president of the NCAA was present at this court ruling, and was in full support of the court's decision. He claimed that the NCAA strives for the education of athletes first, sporting success second (Roberts 2). Another recent court ruling explain in an article by Jon Solomon talks about how paying NCAA athletes violates anti-trust laws that were put in place by the NCAA when it was first created (Solomon 1). These laws are highly important because of their legitimacy and it is now a national law that student athletes cannot receive pay for their performance. In other words, from now on, any institution or players at the collegiate level must fight against the court in order to prove that they are not amateurs. The amateurism and lack of payment for players is what makes the NCAA so popular and beloved. The players are playing for the love of the game and hopefully for a job in the professional level. 

Amateurism is displayed in college sports by the athlete's mannerism on and off the field or court. Some of the athletes' actions prove they cannot act like professionals at all times. In a recent article by Alexander Wolff, he claims that athletes like Johnny Manziel who showboat and receive money for signing autographs, prove they should not be paid in the NCCA because they can't act properly (Wolff 1). Receiving any compensation or payment in the NCAA is illegal, and there have been a lot of scandals in the recent news, just like Reggie Bush. Reggie was caught receiving money to attend the University of Southern California, and was stripped on the Heisman trophy, the most prestigious trophy in all of college sports (Wolff 3). This is a very valid point to bring up because it proves that such high value athletes are proving they do not have enough integrity or morals to say no to illegal pay, proving their unprofessionalism. No athlete who cheats the NCAA should be receiving pay because it shows they are not professional enough to be in it at all.

Although their antics maybe be unprofessional, collegiate athletes at division one programs still receive full scholarships, academic aid, financial aid, and other incentives just to play a sport for that university. Even at the division two and three levels, some sort of financial aid or academic scholarship is given to the top prospects of a single school. This raises the question of why should college athletes be paid if they are already receiving massive scholarships and other important incentives for an education? Yankah Ekow explains in his article how the academic system is rigged for the athletes to pass classes and not have to worry about failing (Ekow 1). This is greatly important because it is almost as if athletes are cheating the system and are not fulfilling the academic standards of the university they attend like non-athletes do. Ekow also states how college sports takes away from the academic background of universities. "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 1). Ekow believes that if colleges began to pay their athletes, it would take away from the academic integrity of the schools. This is important because this takes away from the NCAA's and specific college's main value of education. It proves that they will give up money just to have a top prospect come play for their school, when money could be spent on improving their quality of academics at their university. Athletes who are not going pro need to take this into consideration as well for their life after sports, and how their academic education will help them in their future endeavors. 

Major universities provide student athletes with a great deal of aid whether it is for a scholarship, financial aid or for academics. In a way, these forms of aid can be seen as the players' form of payment. This is also helpful to players who cannot afford to got to college at all, but get scholarships for free to receive and education and a place to showcase their athletic abilities for professional scouts. The NCAA allows student athletes who play basketball or baseball to opt for the NBA or MLB after one full season, and the rest of sports after two full seasons. If this is the case, the scholarships and aid that college athletes receive is definitely enough in terms of a form of pay because for the percentage of students who stay less than four years, it is almost a gift from the NCAA and university due to the fact that they can display their talents for a year or two and go right to the professionals. The collegiate level is almost like an internship for the professional leagues in all sports, therefore the payment of cash for student athletes seems a bit outrageous. 

Student athletes are unable to receive pay because the NCAA is a business that uses an athletes name to generate income for itself and the universities, but the college athlete signs their letter of intent which states that they know the NCAA will be making money off of them. The college player knows this when signing their scholarship. This proves that the NCAA is sort of like an internship for college athletes who want to turn pro. A recent article on ESPN by Scoop Jackson talks about how athletes should not be paid because they accept an agreement for a job with high hopes and the chance to showcase their skills to become a professional (Jackson 1). Jackson talks about how the NCAA is a business, and that when an athlete signs a scholarship, they are agreeing to let the NCAA make money off of them and their name for their university, sort of the professional sports due, except the professional athletes get money and not scholarships (Jackson 1). Scoop Jackson's proves that the NCAA and the pay for play concept will never be perfect because of the business aspect of the NCAA.

The business aspect of the NCAA and even universities themselves are not taken into consideration like it should be. If student athletes begin to be paid, this brings up a question of equality. Which players deserve the most pay? How will paying college athletes impact scholarships and the payment of workers for the school? These are all questions that are still unanswered. This does not seem like a practical plan that will cause this debate to die down. It will heat up the debate because some players will be earning less who may need to be earning more for their life outside of sports. Although people who work at jobs outside of sports receive more pay for their performance, but it is not fair to the lesser contributors on a team because they will play more years than the star players, who will only end up playing one and turning professional.

There is no far way to pay collegiate athletes. The NCAA cannot base its payment process on who is the better player, who comes from a poorer background, or who comes from the richest background. That will only raise another argument, being that some players are not being properly paid and that inequality is being shown by the NCAA's payment process, Jamaal Abdul-Alim questions a recent player's complaint that athletes put in countless hours in the gym and at practice, and do not receive enough for this (Abdul Alim 1). Abdul-Alim brings up the fact that paying college athletes is not practical in reality because of how the NCAA would have to choose who gets a certain amount of money (Abdul Alim2).  This is a strong point because it proves that if one player gets paid more than another, than the NCAA would just turn into a professional league just like the NFL, NBA, or MLB. A CNN YouTube video entitled "Pay for Play Isn't the Answer for College Athletics" talks about how not every player will receive equal pay. A benchwarmer on a team will not get as much as a team's star player, even though the benchwarmer will be on the team for a longer amount of time. So how is that fair? The speakers from CNN also talk about how certain schools raise more income than others; therefore, the pay will be different for every athlete on varying teams. None of this seems like a fair way to treat the athletes especially compared to the way the NCAA is now with scholarships and other forms of financial and academic aid. 

A large amount of the schools in the NCAA are not profitable and making large amounts of money, therefore how can these specific schools pay their athletes? (Horace 1). Not generating enough income at each school is a huge issue because if one school cannot support its athletes with payment, it is not fair or equal. In Jason Winfree and Rodney Fort's book entitled 15 Sports Myths And Why They're Wrong, they argue that college and universities have money to pay college athletes, but what the authors do not take into consideration is that workers and departments of the universities will be effected by the payment of the student athletes. This being said, the effect it will have on other members of the university could be crucial. It is unfair to those workers and departments at institutions to have their payroll or budget cut because the athletes are being paid. Many changes will have to be constructed in order for this plan to work out properly so that all the people involved are content with the outcome. 

The opposing viewpoint on this topic is that college athletes should be paid because they generate so much income for their teams and schools, but aren't repaid in the proper way. Athletes spend countless hours training and preparing to be top-notch athletes and face academic struggles a long the way. Although the claim of the opposition is thoughtful, the opposition does not take into account the fact that college athletes receive rigorous study hours in order to pass classes (Horace 1). Also, many of these athletes leave after one or two years, so academics are definitely not the primary concern versus athletics. It is not an intelligent solution to pay these athletes money at the collegiate level if they are just going to be apart of the NCAA for one to two years. If the NCAA were to pay athletes, it should be to athletes who attend school for four or even five years and do not leave to become a professional. The ones who should be rewarded are those who stick with the NCAA and are putting more than one year into it and will not make money in the future for their athletic abilities. 

A solution to this issue of paying college athletes is a simple one; give the same scholarship, academic, and financial rewards to every player on athletic teams besides the ones who have walked on. Also, give extra financial aid to those who positively need it without rigging the system, meaning offering to give financial aid to top prospects even if they can afford this singular scholarship price. A way of not allowing this to happen is to have the NCAA oversee all players' scholarships to schools and review how much financial aid they are receiving, along with the player's parent or guardian's proof of income. This is an achievable solution to this debate because it equalizes the incentives that student athletes get while keeping the amateurism in the NCAA. It will also not create a brand new argument or debate about athletes receiving enough for their work as players for their colleges. They will still be provided with their gear, shoes, and other incentives in regards to academics and so forth. This solution is practical because this will comply with the court of law and the NCAA rules. 

The intense debate of paying college athletes is surely far from over. Although recent court hearings have been heard with the conclusion that athletes will not be paid, many former and current players will make their voices heard. Many of these players feel they are not getting what they deserve, while other members of the NCAA and sports world in general feel differently. With the NCAA being such a beloved and popular sporting business, it is for certain that the debate will continue as the NCAA remains as one of the top dogs in the sporting industry. A solution is likely; in fact, it could already have been set in place with the recent court rulings that collegiate athletes are amateurs. This being said, that does not mean that the court cannot change their minds and implement a new rule on how college athletes are rewarded for their play. Hopefully the court will use the singular scholarship plan to create a more equal game plan for all incoming NCAA athletes. The future of this issue is looking like it will favor the stance that college athletes should not be paid, and hopefully it will stay that way with improvements to the recent laws. The NCAA is one of the greatest and most fantastic two to three hours of sporting television because of the athlete's pure love of the game with no financial compensation or pay. There is no reason to change that, and it should not be changed because the athletes are amateurs, receive scholarships and many other incentives, are used as a form of business for the NCAA, cause questions of money placement and question equality amongst the players. 

