The question of paying division one NCAA college athletes has stirred up a debate for the last several years. College basketball and football has been increasingly more popular, since 1970. Most recently, the courts ruled against paying college athletes. This topic has interested me since the discussion of whether or not we should pay athletes has become relevant. This topic has interested me because I, myself, could have been a division one athlete and a lot of my friends are division one athletes. The issue pertained to me because being a swimmer I have seen a multitude of programs cut across the country, since the schools wanted to invest in the bigger revenue gaining sports. The issue of paying division one athletes does not really affect my values too much, but how they get the money of if they pay the players anyway affects my values. For example, the issue would affect my values if teams start using illegal boosters or if there is a salary cap using booster or endorsement money to try and go over the salary cap. As stated earlier, my personal experience was from getting recruited to be a division one athlete, as well as having friends swimming or playing other sports at the top universities in the country. Being an athlete and knowing the work it takes to balance one's sport and academics makes me think there should be a stipend for the sport one plays, but at the same time I feel if schools are low on money they would invest in sports instead of academics or the smaller sports. I am qualified to write about this topic because I have followed the issue since it became relevant. Also, I have taken multiple business courses, which have helped me understand whether or not paying college athletes is a respectable investment.  I also plan on using a multitude of sources to help make my decisions on whether or not we should pay college athletes.

The first source that will help determine if college athletes should get paid is "College athletes finally getting some cash". This article talks about all division one athletes finally receiving small stipends for things like extra food, laundry, and other student fees the scholarship does not cover. The majority of athletes are receiving stipends anywhere from 2,000-5,000 dollars to help make up for the 3,500 dollars the scholarship does not cover. Also, every athletic program the university offers receives the stipends including the sports that do not generate as much revenue. The president of the National College Player Association estimates this will cost schools around 100 million dollars which is proportionally small to what they bring in which is approximately 1.7 billion dollars. This article shows the NCAA is making progress for people that support paying college athletes.  Although some may think this is a small step, it is a step in the right direction if giving athletes what they deserve. Giving college athletes a stipend could also be devastating for people who are against paying college athletes because it shows the NCAA is leaning toward the side of paying college athletes.  The author of this news article, Chris Isidore, is a very credible author. He has written multiple articles for CNNMoney. Also, he shows little bias since he is looking at paying college athletes from an economic stand point instead of the view of a college sports fan.

The next source would be "A Way to Start Paying College Athletes" which suggest a way to start paying college athletes.  The author suggest setting up a minimum salary of 25,000 for each player, having a free market aspect to recruiting players, and giving college athletes an 8 year scholarship instead of a 4 year one. He thinks some of these ideas will work because it help eliminate scandal in the sports because the boosters will be able to fund the teams without having to sneak money into the school. Also, giving players 8 years instead of 4 will help them get a degree and exceed athletically.  This would give a huge advantage to the power 5 conferences, since they generate the most money and will be able to pay the athletes much more than the non-power five schools. Also, this idea would destroy every other college sport which is not football, basketball, or baseball. The majority of schools would cut every other sport and most likely not invest as much in academics (the reason people should go to college) because they would spend all their money into football and basketball. A recent example is LSU because they are investing so much into sports their academic buildings are deteriorating and they do not have the money to fund construction.  The author shows much bias in this article to pay college athletes. Joe Nocera, the author, even wrote an article four years ago about a plan to pay college athletes. Nocera has some credit since he is a sports business columnist for the New York Times and has to have some idea how these plans will affect the game financially.

The final source is "College Athletes Deserve to be Paid" which is about college athletes deserving a small stipend. The author was at first adamantly against paying college athletes, but then saw that with TV deals the NCAA is making 11.3 billion dollars.  He thinks that only the players that generate the revenue should get a tiny slice. Also, the players getting paid would not be getting paid directly out of the athletic department since that it is not feasible, but would be getting paid by the NCAA. This would be good for college football and basketball players because they would get some of the money they earned and generated. Also, it would be good for schools since they would not have to spend any of their athletic budget on paying players. This would not be good for smaller sports, since people would stop playing them and focus more on football and basketball, so they can make money. The author Michael Wilbon is a very credible source. Wilbon is a cohost of his own show, Pardon the Interruption, on the most well-known sports network in the country, ESPN. Although Wilbon shows little bias, he backs up his points with statistics and evidence to try and prove his argument is feasible.

The question of paying college athletes is a much debated topic. Many people are supporters of paying college athletes and others are not. This is debated because some people think that college athletes should make lots of money, while others think they are getting paid to go to school and get an education which is already enough. Through the different sources I used they are all in favor of giving college athletes some money, but the amount college athletes get paid and how they get paid vary. For example, the first article suggest every college athlete should get a stipend while the other two only think basketball and football players should make money. Also, the second article thinks the athletic department and boosters should fund athletes, while the third thinks the NCAA should pay athletes. At first, I was against paying college athletes, but seeing all these different ways to pay college athletes I am now for giving college athletes small stipends. The first and third article seem the most feasible ideas of paying college athletes. After looking at these sources, I think it is inevitable college athletes will get paid, so that may think about my research question and change it to "How should we pay college athletes".

