As a Civil Engineering student at the University of South Carolina, I have faced many difficult experiences both in and outside of the class room. At a younger age, I failed to truly understand the exhausting style of living that would one day reach me. As I stepped into a new chapter of my life it came suddenly and without any mercy. The college life excites most of us as it offers freedom, new friends, various activities and the power of knowledge. What we fail to see is the hardships that come with it all. A survey conducted by Associated press and mtvU  found that four out of ten college students report they feel stressed often. One out of five say they feel stressed most of the time. One out of four students report experiencing daily stress and one in ten report thoughts of suicide (Schuder). It is apparent that the life of a regular college student is not as easy as one may think. Now envision a college life that expects an individual to take on the task of jumpstarting towards a career, while also entertaining the university and its thousands of students. This focuses on those students who are also committed to a sport in college. For years now, there has been major discussion of whether college athletes should or should not be paid for representing their schools. The argument in favor of allowing colleges to pay their student-athletes comes down to economic efficiency, distributive justice and a reasonable interpretation of antitrust laws. By contrast, the argument against allowing pay to student-athletes arises mainly from greed and self-interest (Edelman). 

Before coming to college I used to argue passionately against paying these athletes. They are compensated with fame, special treatment from numerous staff members, and most importantly given free education. It seemed foolish to think that these gifted individuals would ask for anything more then what they are already given. With much research and a new perspective given to me from my personal college experience and the stress that has come with it, I have formed a new opinion on the issue. Student athletes, specifically those involved in Division One sports should indeed be paid for the representation of their Universities due to the great amount of profit they generate, the risk they take of never receiving a degree, and lastly for extra expenses they may not be able to pay for, caused from such long hours invested in their sport. 

It is important to take notice and understand why certain people argue against the pay of college athletes so passionately. Kieran McCauley gives one of the most common arguments for this issue by stating that "Athletic scholarships are their compensation and a fair one at that. Essentially they receive a free education and in return they represent the school in a certain sport." Those who agree with McCauley are not wrong about this number and in fact some athletes are even given stipends that range from $2,000-$5,000 to fill the gap for free education (Stipends, are made to, or on behalf of, degree candidates to pay for educational expenses). How could anyone ask for more than the substantial amount of support already given to most of these D-1 athletes? This may seem even more absurd knowing that the average class of 2015 graduates, with student-loan debt, will have to pay back a little more than $35,000 (Sparshott). 

Before explaining how the very convincing argument above is actually misguiding, there should first be a clear and approachable way into the mind of the reader. I'll start by stating that a $30,000 (average scholarship for a college athlete) scholarship may indeed seem like a large amount of money, but it really only covers the basics. As a regular student in college I can testify that this amount of money goes to unknown university fees, tuition, housing, a meal-plan and multiple hundred-dollar textbooks. Luckily, full time students are given the time to make a little extra cash at a job for expenses such as food, gas, and activities such as going to see a movie. This of course does not apply to those fortunate enough to be completely supported by family members as they have no worries of working.  The National College Players Association released what is called a comprehensive report on The Price of Poverty in Big Time College Sport. The report concluded that 86 percent of college athletes live below the poverty line (Hayes). This is important to know when understanding that being an athlete is a full-time job that gives no salary or extra time to make money for other expenses. The point of this is that a scholarship doesn't equal cash in a player's pocket. Even with any type of scholarship, college athletes are typically dead broke.

The life of a college athlete cannot be put into one's personal perspective until they have heard from an individual who has actually experienced it for themselves. Richard Sherman, a current player of the NFL, is widely known for his outrageous sideline interview after a game that sent the Seattle Seahawks to Super Bowl XLVIII. What many people don't know is that Sherman finished second in his high school class with a 4.1 GPA which was more than good enough to be accepted into Stanford and their football program (Schalter).  In an interview from 2015, Sherman did a great job of explaining the daily schedule of a college athlete. He explains that on a typical day, a player will wake up before classes, get a lift or conditioning session in, go to class until 3 or 4 p.m., go to practice, go to mandatory study hall, and then finish homework or study for a test. What this all built up to was what he says towards the end of his interview. "They are upset when a student-athlete says they need a little cash," he said. "Well, I can tell you from experience, I had negative-40 bucks in my account most of the time" (Richard Sherman Student Athlete Education). The financial situation of a student athlete is not always as prosperous as one may think, especially with the schedule they are basically forced to live by. 

As college players, such as Richard Sherman at one point in his life, work to get better and their teams win more games, already-highly-compensated coaches get larger and larger bonuses for team success, while the players continue to get nothing more than their grant in aid. Many coaches earn at least $100,000 per year to coach one of the major sports like baseball, basketball, or football at a school (Hartnett). To speak more specifically on financial statuses of the college athletic department "the college sports industry generates $11 billion in annual revenues. "Fifty colleges report annual revenues that exceed $50 million. Meanwhile, five colleges report annual revenues that exceed $100 million" (Edelman). If players are seeing none of this money then who is joining the coaches in obtaining these immense profits? The National College Players Association and Drexel University released a study that shows how the NCAA directs the wealth generated by big money college sport programs towards administrators, conference commissioners, bowl executives, colleges and universities, and corporate entities (Manfred). Big time College athletes are the only reason these billions of dollars are generated, so what is the detailed explanation for not giving them salaries?

Most people who oppose the idea of paying student athletes state that it is simply impossible to do so. There is no way that all athletes could get paid the same amount of money. It could not be fair that sports which do not air on national television get the same compensation as a sport such as football which has the capability of entertain millions of fans at one time. The less popular sports may not generate as much money but their work is equal to that of a football, basketball, or baseball player. They would have to be compensated equally. On another note, "The NCAA reported that 28.3 million viewers watched the 2015 NCAA Men's Division I National Championship between Wisconsin and Duke. They also reported there were 3.1 million viewers for the 2015 NCAA Women's Division I National Championship between Notre Dame and UConn" (McCauley). The numbers are obviously far apart from each other but it is not the fault of women, who work just as hard to entertain their universities as men do, to not be treated equally. The same goes for Division II and Division III sports. Why shouldn't those athletes be paid the same if they put in the same amount of time to practice, travel, and play games? These problems lead to the argument of why college athletes cannot be paid. 

The opposing argument above led me to propose the idea of specifically paying Division One athletes. The reason for doing so is that they are without a doubt the ones that deserve salaries. The National College Players Association and Drexel University released a study on how much college athletes would be worth on the open market. The fair market value for the average FBS football player is $137,357 per year, and the fair market value for the average men's basketball player is $289,031 per year (Manfred). This study focuses on those big time Division one athletes.  Of course paying the athletes this much money would destroy the entire structure of how college athletics is funded, but they are definitely worth much more to their schools then what they are given. The only thing stopping the athletes from receiving any type of salary are the rules of the NCAA against it and a plan that will work successfully in doing so. 

"The NCAA membership has adopted amateurism rules to ensure the students' priority remains on obtaining a quality educational experience and that all of student-athletes are competing equitably" (Mitchell).  These rules have led to the denial of paying college athletes. One case that reveals the absurdity of amateurism rules focuses on, former Wake Forest tennis player, Noah Rubin. After winning the Wimbledon junior singles title and competing in the U.S. open Rubin had won $48,000. Almost all of the money was given back because of NCAA rules only allowing him to keep enough prize money to pay for his travel expenses. After all the hard work players, such as Noah Rubin, put into their sport they should be allowed to keep these earnings. Not only are the NCAA rules immoral, but they also are likely illegal says Marc Edelman, a specialist in sports law. He goes on by saying 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." Applying this language, any agreement among NCAA members to prohibit the pay of student-athletes represents a form of wage fixing that likely violates antitrust law. As much as the NCAA focuses on "wanting students to compete fairly," the amateurism rules are only taking away what rightfully belongs to the players. Athletes who are able to capitalize on the opportunity to generate any profit at all have done so because they are practicing harder and from that have reached new levels of performance. This higher level of performance is what keeps the fans viewing. It is time that the highly skilled performers, those who keep their audience entertained, are rewarded for the representation of their school and the NCAA. Once NCAA members are ready to realize the unfairness of these amateurism rules they will need to adopt a plan which will successfully pay their athletes. 

Barrett Sallee may present one of the best proposals for paying big time college athletes. First of all he focuses on the fair market value of these players by stating, "If players want to make money, let them do it on the individual level, regardless of sport." This idea basically supports the use of a player to advertise companies. In return, the players are paid for their deals. Of course only the division one athletes would profit from this as they are the ones who have truly made a name for themselves that companies want to advertise. This explains the unfortunate exclusion of pay for division two athletes. Since the athletes will be paid on an individual level there cannot be any comparison between men and women sports. Whatever opportunity that is given to these athletes is because they have gained the interest of others. Some people may think it is absurd to have 18 year olds flashing the money they have earned throughout campus. Barrett proposes to let some type of entity manage the fund and make it accessible only after graduating. This "entity" should specifically be the University the athlete is attending at the time. To make sure the Universities are not taking any profit away from the players, it should be the athlete's responsibility to constantly keep watch and make records of what is being put into their balance.  If players were not given the money right away it would prevent poor investments and would also create motivation for athletes to actually graduate with a degree. Players could profit while also keeping the rules set by amateurism intact. So what if a Player was to leave college early? If a player leaves early then that means they were most likely given a chance in the big leagues.  They won't need the money saved up from college deals. Of course finishing their academics would be the smart thing to do as it could serve as an insurance policy to the professional careers that only last four to six years (Sallee). The excuse of there not being a plan to pay these deserving athletes is absurd and should not play such a great factor in the argument.

At the end the day these athletes are not seen as students, but instead employees to their universities and conferences. It cannot be seen as fair for the NCAA and big time college sport programs to be making billions on these talented individuals and giving little to nothing in return. They give up the opportunity of reaching professional careers and put at risk having nothing to rely on in the future. The NCAA constantly speak on the importance of these college athletes getting a good education but in reality that is not the reason they are at college. When looking again at what Richard Sherman has to say on the issue, it is apparent that universities do indeed give scholarships to their players but not for education. He recalls a coach saying "you didn't get that scholarship to go to school, you're here for football" ("Richard Sherman Student Athlete Education"). Many people get upset with student-athletes and say they're not focused on school and they're not taking advantage of the opportunity they're given. They are not able to see what goes on behind closed doors. Yes, they are receiving a free education but what does that mean if they cannot actually benefit from an academic standpoint. Scott Soshnick, an NCAA official, estimated probabilities of athletes in six major sports becoming professionals. Only one sport (baseball) had more than 2% of NCAA players go pro. This can only mean that a very high percentage of these athletes are basically going to school for no reason at all. They aren't going professional and they aren't jumpstarting towards a professional career. The bottom line is that college athletes are not truly cared for by their university or the NCAA. All they care about is the large amount of profits that are being generated by their "athletic students." If they're going to be treated as employees then of course division one athletes should be paid. 

If the flawed system of the NCAA does not compromise in paying their employees in more than just scholarships and minimal stipends, then the existence of sports as we know will continue to show a steady pace towards complete corruption. Millions of lives are entertained by college sports and its hard working players. Watching college sports is a way of releasing stress, having fun, and uniting the many fans that share the same love for the game. The players are the key part to this system. If they did not exist we would not be able to look forward to such miraculous entertainment. The NCAA fails to realize that sports were not created for the hope of one day forming a business that would create billions of dollars. Sports were made to give this world something else to look forward to. The issue is much more than showing respect towards the deserving players. This is an issue that revolves itself around the respect of sports in general. I'm sure that if the sport itself had someone to compensate, it would give to those who have worked so hard to master its existence. 

 
