On March 17, 2016, two players from the University of South Carolina Men's Basketball team were "arrested in connection with properties damaged with a BB gun" (2 USC men's basketball players arrested, charged in property crimes). These two student athletes don't represent how all student athletes at the University of South Carolina behave. There are certainly student athletes who do the right thing but there are also these others who do not. If you pay some athletes, you have to pay all even if they vandalize cars in their free time.  The argument boils down to whether the athletes deserve part of the profit for representing the University, but I personally don't want two individuals who drive around shooting people's homes and cars with a BB gun to represent the University I go to, much less financially make profit because of their athletic ability. I don't think that student athletes should be paid to play while in college; the athletes have too many extra benefits to help them succeed in life to be awarded payment for their play. Student athletes are given advantages over other students academically and financially through athletic scholarships. The added benefit of making a student athlete a paid employee is not needed.

Time Magazine published a cover story about Johnny Manziel, who was suspended for taking money to sign autographs before the 2013 college football season. Many people defended Manziel, that he should be able to take money for his famed status and charge fans to pay for his autograph, as his professional counterparts are allowed to do. Most fans think that college student athletes deserve part of the money that is made off of the business of college athletics. Time Magazine brings the point that "Souvenir hawkers, bars, burger joints, hotels, ticket brokers, stadium vendors, parking attendants and others rely on home games for revenue" (Gregory). While it is true that some people do make most of their living off of home college football games, college student athletes have their housing, food, clothing, textbooks, and most importantly their education paid for. The souvenir hawkers, ticket brokers stadium vendors, bar, restaurant, and hotel owners still pay for their own housing, food, clothes, and certainly didn't have a university pay for their education while in school. Even professional athletes pay for their housing, food, and clothing. The adults who make their living off of the crowds that come to watch college football games are just doing their job and servicing the people who want to watch the games. 

College students who are not student athletes busy themselves with clubs and internships to build up their resumes. The main objective many students have is to create a strong network while in college, to use to gain employment opportunities after college. Athletes have an automatic network of fans who are willing to employ them if their professional careers don't pan out. Obtaining a job is easier when resumes include playing a sport at an institution. The commitment to the school and the sports program shows future employers commitment and makes the candidate seem admirable, even if they have rarely touched the playing field. Alumni from the school and many sports fans recognize the name of the institution and employ former athletes because of the possible recognition the company could get. Enterprise car rental even features a commercial that shows the employment opportunities they offer to former student athletes with the sponsorship connection they have with the NCAA.

College athletes at the University of South Carolina have more advantages to succeed than regular students at the University do. Students at South Carolina have many programs set up to help them succeed academically. An example of a resource that is an added benefit to the student athlete population at the University of South Carolina is the tutoring that is provided. The student athletes are able to use the same resources that other students have but also have the additional benefit of The Dodie Academic Center. "The 13.5-million-dollar cost of the structure" (Gillespie) is another added center that athletes have to help them succeed academically. The Dodie employs tutors specifically for University athletes and they are only paid for the purpose of helping the athletes to succeed. This 'student athlete success center' far exceeds the money spent on the success centers built for regular students, despite the larger population of regular students.

This past college football season there was a large change in the rules, "the NCAA ... is allowing schools to give cash stipends" (Isidore). The stipends are a welcome change to supporters of paying student athletes, as it is a victory over the players having no extra benefits. The stipend was given because "star athletes have complained about going to bed hungry" (Isidore). The stipends given to athletes "range from about $2,000 to $5,000 a year" (Isidore), that is $5 to $13 a day simply because the student athlete's ability and dedication to the sport. The commitment is paid off by the student's athletic scholarship, and this added stipend is not necessary. This victory is only a step to those who argue that student athletes should be paid, it is seen as a bridge between just an education to being paid for playing. 

Some disagree with the notion that college student athletes should be paid for their play. This is backed by contributing author Tom Van Riper titling an article aimed at a rival company "Sorry Time Magazine: Colleges Have No Reason To Pay Athletes" (Van Riper). Scholarship student athletes are saved money from tuition during their years in college and they gain exposure through what John Rowady, the president of a sports marketing firm rEvolution, calls "brand building" (Van Riper), he says that "a top notch football or basketball recruit isn't just getting the competitive experience he needs for launching a pro career. He's gaining exposure" (Van Riper). Often times there are SportsCenter specials on athletes who grew up in poverty and escaped to become athletes at universities who benefit from John Rowady's "brand building" (Van Riper) and can go on to sign lucrative professional contracts to improve their lives. This brand building allowed former Gamecock Jadeveon Clowney to take "out a $5-million-dollar insurance policy to protect himself financially during the Gamecocks' 2013 season" (Jadeveon Clowney insures health). The insurance policy wouldn't have been possible if not for Clowney's immediate name recognition for his college football highlights and award-winning play. The University affords the student athlete the opportunity to build a name for themselves, with the association of the university's athletic program. Smaller athletes who don't have a shot at the professional leagues benefit from the brand of 'athlete at this institution' on their resumes and still have the benefit of receiving an education with the athletic scholarship.

Student athletes are given the opportunity to make this brand name for themselves so that they can make money down the road and can profit off of their athletic abilities. One issue that people take is that student athletes should make money while they are in college because if they injure themselves playing a college sport they will never be able to make it to the professional level, because they were hurt when they could not make any money. If you extend that logic, then it is also dangerous for that same kid to play in his/her high school athletic event because he/she might be injured and it would cause them financial setback down the road. The risks are still there in high school, even if the media attention that college has isn't. The claim arose that former South Carolina football player Jadeveon Clowney would be better off if he sat "out the year and not risk injury" (Jadeveon Clowney insures health). This led to Clowney putting an insurance policy in on his knee his junior year at the University of South Carolina.

The idea of paying players is supported in its majority by casual college football fans, but the idea runs into two problems according to an article by Business Insider: Title IX and Where does the money come from? Against the Title IX problem which is not often spoken about, Business Insider explains that "participating schools are going to pay the football and men's basketball players, they are also going to have to pay the women's volleyball and soccer players, and every other athlete at these institutions (Gaines). This payment to all athletes at an institution "would cost at least $200 million every year" (Gaines). Paying every student athlete at an institution wouldn't be a problem for the big-time athletic programs but smaller schools could barely pay football players let alone every student athlete. Paying student athletes "at the big schools is an unfair recruiting advantage and would ... widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots" (Gaines). The solution that Business Insider says would work is for "the schools would need only to re-classify the athletes as employees" (Gaines). The problem with classifying the athletes as employees is that if you extend status as a professional to college student athletes then you take away the value of their getting an education. 

Title IX was a landmark decision that evened the field between men and women in college athletics; the law makes sure that women get the same number of teams and the same number of scholarships as men's athletics does. If it were legal to pay student athletes, then women would have to be paid too. The discussion about paying student athletes never includes women's sports, when at many colleges a women's team has more success than any men's team (even in the same sport). The University of Connecticut Women's Basketball team "earned its 11th title, tying the University of California, Los Angeles, men's basketball team's all-time mark for Division 1 championships" (Women's basketball makes history during Final Four). The men's basketball team recently won "the program's fourth national title" (Shabazz Napier, UConn too much for Kentucky). The success at the University of Connecticut is largely claimed by the women's team, even while the men have done very well in their own sport. The conversation about paying players is a result of the revenue from College Football, but with women's athletics being left out it violates law that says "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" (Title IX and Sex Discrimination). Men's athletics do stand to make more at a typical institution than do the women, and the University of Connecticut is an outlier. The conversation remains that it isn't fair or legal to leave women out of the argument. Women athletes are just as much representatives of a university as their male counterparts are, but don't get the recognition that is given to the men. This fault makes that the payment of athletes would force the hand of the NCAA to pay women or make the government repeal the legislation, which stands as a large obstacle.

The lost part in this argument is the value of an education: "according to census bureau data, college graduates earn approximately $1 million more than people whose highest educational attainment is a high school diploma" (Van Riper). The business of college athletics gives entertainment to college football fans on Saturdays in the fall, and nights in the winter and spring for other college sports fans. But the people who benefit the most from the relationship between education and playing for the entertainment of spectators are the athletes who wouldn't be able to afford an education without scholarship. Giving these student athletes the opportunity to earn an education gives them a safety net if their athletic future does not pan out. According to the NCAA just in college football players only "4.0% of draft-eligible Division I players were chosen in the 2014 NFL draft (249/6,153)" (Estmated probability of competing in professional athletics). That statistic leaves 96% of players (5,904) that don't make it to the NFL. The insurance that having a college education gives former student athletes a better opportunity to be successful in their post-college life. Regular students pay for their education themselves and are set up with the same degree that student athletes have post-graduation. The value of that degree with tuition waived is lost in the discussion of paying players. They don't deserve to earn more money when some students struggle through college balancing a job and course work to afford the tuition, food, and housing to end with the same result of getting an education, meals and a place to live. The student athletes do have to go to practice and go to class, but they are awarded with their scholarships, praise from fans, a shot at making it professionally, and extra benefits so there is no reason to be paid or earn more rewards. The living expenses are paid for if the student athletes opt to stay on campus, if they decide to live off campus then it is their job to pay. The expenses are all paid for if the student athletes use their scholarships as they are meant to be used.

Student athletes are given scholarship money towards their tuition that is reserved only for athletic scholarships. Student athletes have the same opportunities to earn academic scholarships as all other students do, but they also have the added opportunity to use athletic scholarships. The athletic scholarship was invented by colleges in the South attempting to get players from the North to leave home and come South to play sports. Recruiting was unregulated and student athletes were offered everything from the new idea of an athletic scholarship to cars: "SMU signed Harry Stollenwerk by assigning a local car dealer to bring him in" (The History of Cheating in College Football Recruiting). This practice extended while legal until the NCAA regulated recruiting and attempted to even the playing field. Recruiting advantages then moved underground, while still supplying players like Reggie Bush with "$300,000 in gifts" (Top 10 Infamous NCAA Sanctions) while he played for the University of Southern California. The athletic scholarship originated as a recruiting tool to give student athletes money to come to a school, then the conversation progressed to the modern argument of whether student athletes should be paid extra money outside of a scholarship. The issue comes that when is enough for athletes, the line has been drawn at the obvious jumps from athletic scholarships and stipends to student athletes being given cars and $300,000 in gifts.

Student athletes aren't all bad people, there are good people who do what they should; come in, take advantage of the resources and become good educated people. There is no way to stop the business of college athletics. The business is growing and appeals to a large group of people. The argument over whether student athletes should get added benefits shouldn't revolve around paying the athletes. Athletes already have a great opportunity set out in front of them with resources. The athletes have a platform to reach the professional level of their own sport, and have all the opportunity in the world to take advantage of academic centers, tutors, admirers of the sport, and future employers. When you are able to say that you played for a certain college it holds weight to fans and alumni of the school. The benefits of playing at a University for any athletic event far outweigh the struggle of balancing the coursework and the academics. It is an honor to be able to play a sport at the college level and it is also an honor to attend a college. The education that student athletes receive is too often overlooked and should be valued much more than it is in this discussion. Student athletes are humans though, some athletes come from long distances away to take advantage of the opportunity to play a college sport. The benefit that the student athletes should receive are the opportunity to go see their parents, and tickets for their relatives to see them play. It isn't necessary to pay athletes with cars as SMU did, or in gifts as Southern California did for Reggie Bush. Giving student athletes an opportunity to take a trip home in the offseason, that they couldn't afford because they went too far away to school to achieve their dream of playing a college sport, is understandable. The additional benefits that student athletes already have is a long list that includes a lot of money spent on them and for them. The list of benefits doesn't need to include making student athletes professionals in their sport years earlier. The opportunity for that professional status comes later and there is no need to move that status up to include college student athletes.

