College athletics bring in billions of dollars to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and universities, but the student-athletes do not receive any money in return.  According to the NCAA, a college athlete must be an amateur to be eligible to play a college sport.  This means that they are not permitted to accept money or any extra benefits for their athletic talents.  A former Baylor walk-on football player named Silas Nacita was caught accepting benefits including housing, food, and financial support.  Before he accepted benefits, he was homeless with little money.  He was turned away from homeless shelters and resorted to sleeping on the floor in his friend's apartment, in ditches on the side of the road, or on couches in hotel lobbies.  Since he was a walk-on, he did not receive the same benefits from Baylor that the recruited players received.  He was only given financial aid to help pay tuition, but no money for books, food, or a place to stay.  Without books or money, he still made the Academic All-Big 12.  Despite doing well academically, he was still punished by the NCAA for accepting free housing and food from a family friend.  He was declared ineligible from NCAA football and he was forced to drop out of school (Rodriguiez).  Recently, he made the news again when he signed a contract with the Marburg Mercenaries, a professional football team in Germany (SI Wire).  A player should not be banned from college football and be forced to leave school because he accepted gifts that were offered.  Many people argue that college athletes should not be paid because they already receive scholarship money as well as other benefits.  Unfortunately, not all college athletes receive scholarships and extra benefits.  The NCAA has to fix the problem of poor college athletes not receiving benefits.  It would be difficult to pay college students a specific salary, but there are other solutions.  For example, fans of college athletics should be allowed to pay college athletes for their autograph or jersey without the athlete being punished. College athletes should be allowed to receive benefits for their athletic talents and time commitment to their sport.         

It is unfair to the athletes that they do not receive any compensation because they are the ones bringing in the money.  The average ticket prince to attend the 2015 NCAA Final Four was $1,151.98 (Peebles).  Clearly, the NCAA is making a big enough profit to pay the athletes.  The NCAA and schools make millions of dollars every year from college athletics, but the athletes do not see any of that money.  Desmond Howard, who won the 1991 Heisman Trophy, said, "You see everybody getting richer and richer. And you walk around and you can't put gas in your car? You can't even fly home to see your parents?" (Zirin).  It is not acceptable for the NCAA to profit without giving the student-athletes basic needs.  Arian Foster, a former football player at the University of Tennessee, admitted to taking money on the side in order to pay for rent and food.  In the documentary "Schooled: The Price of College Sports", he says, "107,000 people buying a ticket to watch us play ... You go outside and there's hundred of kids waiting for you. You're signing autographs, taking pictures, whatever. Then I walk back and reality sets in. I go to my dorm room, open my fridge, and there's nothing in my fridge. Hold up, man. What just happened? Why don't I have anything to show for what I just did?" (Finkel).  Although many athletes live in this situation, the NCAA still refuses to give its athletes any compensation.   Mark Emmert, the president of the NCAA, makes almost $2 million per year (Peebles).  Even with him having a huge income, the NCAA is still classified a non-profit organization and their total revenue is tax exempt.  The total profits of the NCAA will decrease if they decide to pay college athletes salaries, which is one reason why the NCAA does not want to pay athletes.  The NCAA is not deliberately avoiding paying college athletes, but they are taking advantage of its athletes by profiting billions of dollars and not giving any of it to them.

In addition to the NCAA and Universities making a profit from college athletics, college coaches earn high salaries as well.  The coaches of unpaid college athletes are often paid more than coaches on the professional level.  Rick Pitino's 2011 salary as the University of Louisville head basketball coach was $7.5 million.  His salary in 2000 was $5 million as a coach in the NBA (Nocera).  In most states, a head basketball or football college coach is the highest paid public employee.  The average annual pay for all football coaches of bowl-eligible schools is $1.64 million (Zirin).  The top 15 college football coaches are paid $53.3 million in total, while the 13,877 Division I football players earn $0 (Nocera).  There is no reason for college coaches to be paid millions of dollars when the athletes they coach receive nothing.  College athletes do not need to receive million dollar salaries like their coaches, but some extra cash to spend on everyday living expenses would be beneficial.  No student should have to struggle with day-to-day needs.  Arian Foster once called his coach and said, "coach, we don't got food. We don't have no money. We're hungry."  His coach went out and bought fifty tacos for four or five players on the team, which is an NCAA violation.  Arian Foster said he felt guilty asking his coach for food, but then he saw his coach drive up to the facility the next day in a brand new Lexus (Finkel).  It does not seem right that college coaches live a luxurious life while some of their athletes struggle for food.  If schools can afford to pay coaches extreme amounts of money, they should be able to compensate their athletes as well. 

College athletes sacrifice their bodies and physical health even though they are not covered by workers compensation.  In 1953, a football player at the University of Denver sued the university claiming that he should be given workers compensation to pay for the injuries he got while playing football.  The ruling was upheld, which caused the NCAA to change the players from being employees to "student-athletes."  Now, student-athletes are responsible for their own insurance and medical bills (Vanderford).  The student-athletes are put at stake because they put their bodies on the line each game.  The athletes are losing in this situation because they make sacrifices without receiving benefits (Patterson).  Dave Zirin, the author of the article "The Shame of the NCAA" agrees that the NCAA should protect its athletes by providing workers compensation protection.  College athletes will often leave college early to play professionally in fear that they will get injured before they get a chance to earn money playing their sport (Zirin). College athletes should not be required to pay for their own hospital bills if they are hurt during a game or practice. While some schools do cover medical expenses, every athlete can lose their scholarship due to injury. Losing a scholarship can cause students to drop out of school due to the high cost of tuition.    

Although student-athletes are given money in the form of scholarships, they are worth more than the scholarship money they receive.  The main argument against paying college athletes is that they receive money in the form of free college tuition, housing, meals, tutoring, and other luxurious benefits.  Many people forget that not all college athletes receive scholarships.  Only the best and highly recruiting players get a free education.  These student-athletes are often worth more than tuition and the other benefits they receive, especially football and men's basketball players.  A scholarship is essentially the school paying itself.  It is a dollar amount that is transferred from the athletic department to the University.  College athletics bring colleges millions of dollars and increase the schools popularity.  A study found that the average football player at the University of Texas is worth $578,000, while the scholarship money each athlete receives is equal to about $37,000.  It has been proven that winning football games reduces acceptance rates and increases donations, applications, academic reputation, in-state enrollment, and incoming SAT scores. (Vanderford).  Having a good athletic program will attract more students and increase the school's revenue.  Since college sports are heavily advertised on TV, a good football team will get more media attention and become a better-known school.  Many college students enjoy attending games and they will be more likely to apply to schools with better teams.          

A change that needs to be made is that scholarship should be guaranteed for all four years.  According to the NCAA rules, scholarships are only for one year and the coaches renew them each year.  Coaches have a limit on the number of scholarships they can give out to their team.  This means that not all the players on a team receive scholarship money and extra benefits.  If a student-athlete is injured or performing poorly, they can lose their scholarship at anytime and it can be given to another person (Zirin).  A coach should not be allowed to take away scholarship money from an injured player.  Dropping a student-athletes scholarship might force him or her to drop out of school if they cannot afford the cost of tuition. 

The day-to-day life of a student-athlete can be very difficult compared to a regular college student.  Being a student-athlete is a huge time commitment for something they volunteer to do for free.  Although student-athletes receive a free education, they often do not receive the same benefits of regular students.  They often miss classes due to away games and fall behind in their schoolwork.  Coaches often put more pressure on student-athletes to perform better on the field instead of in the classroom.  It can be very difficult to keep up with a college workload, since so much time is spent away from class.  Two former UNC student-athletes filed a lawsuit against the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and the NCAA claiming that they did not receive a meaningful education while representing their school on the field.  The student-athletes at UNC were told to take "paper classes" which rarely met and only required on final paper.  The classes were meant specifically for student-athletes to earn a high grade in order to maintain the minimum GPA for NCAA eligibility (Jacobs).  The amount of time the school's athletic commitment took up did not make it easy student-athletes to take a real course load.  The student-athletes at UNC did not getting a real education and they do not make any money by playing a sport.  While this not true for all student-athletes, it shows that athletics are usually the priority and academics are put second.  There is more pressure put on athletes to perform better on the field than in the classroom.     

An argument against paying college athletes is that they should get jobs if they want to get paid more than scholarship money.  It would be very difficult to balance a college workload, practice, and a job on the side.  A 2011 study by the NCAA found that Division I football players spend an average of 43.3 hours a week on their sport (Vanderford).  The NCAA tried to fix this problem by implementing a 20-hour rule.  The rule states that student-athletes may only participate in 20 hours of their sport per week.  Administrative meetings, weight lifting, conditioning, film study, and student-led workouts are not included, which puts every student-athlete way over the 20-hour limit (Jacobs).  Due to the time commitment of playing a sport in college, student-athletes do not have enough to have a job and focus on their schoolwork and their sport. 

Most of the student-athletes that go on to play professionally do not use all of their college eligibility.  They will be more likely to stay in school longer and graduate with a degree if they are paid.  Many of the top college athletes leave school early because they want to earn money by playing professionally.  In reality, fewer than 2% of all student-athletes go on to play professionally (Manfred).  Many college athletes have accepted money illegally because it is their only chance to get paid for playing sports.  Other college athletes accept money because they cannot afford everyday needs, such as food.  Athletes often fear that they will get injured if they continue to play in school.  If a player suffers a career ending injury before he or she graduates from college, they will be unable to play professionally.  For this reason, the top athletes often choose to leave college in order to make a pay check.  Players are also taking other options, such as getting in paid in other countries instead of playing college sports (Barbash).  This has caused the competition in college athletics to decrease.  If every college athlete used their full four-year eligibility, the competition would increase and improve college sports overall.  Paying college athletes would give them an incentive to stay in school.

The opposition to paying college athletes believes that it would be too difficult to pay salaries.  Since basketball and football bring in a lot more revenue than other sports, it makes sense to pay those athletes more.  However, the other athletes put in the same effort and time into their sport.  It would be very difficult to assign salaries to each player in different sports.  A better solution is to allow college athletes to earn money themselves without getting paid a salary.  Ken Reed, the author of the article "Solution Regard Paying College Athletes or Not Is Simple," also agrees.  Reed says, "Paying athletes salaries as university employees is impractical, given the complex set of ancillary issues that option raises. However, allowing college athletes to receive money from outside the athletic department is much more straightforward" (Reed).  If someone is willing to pay a college athlete or give him or her gifts, there should be no reason for them not to accept it.  Companies profit millions of dollars by selling jerseys with a player's number on it, but a player would be punished for selling his or her own jersey.  For example, Johnny Manziel, the former Heisman winner from Texas A&M, got caught accepting money for his autograph.  As a result, the NCAA suspended him for half a game ("Should the NCAA Pay College Players?").  It is not fair to student-athletes that the NCAA and apparel companies are allowed to sell Johnny Manziel's jersey and autograph, but Johnny Manziel is not allowed to accept money for his own autograph.  No other college student has the limits a student-athlete does.  For example, music majors are allowed to perform and receive money for their talents.  The same rules should apply to college athletes.  

College athletes should be allowed to accept money for other benefits for their athletic talents.  Since college athletics is a huge billion-dollar business, the athletes should receive compensation.  Without the athlete's dedication and time commitment, there would not be college sports.  It does not make sense for coaches to be earning millions of dollars per year, while the athletes they coach do not profit at all.  College athletes are putting their bodies at risk during each game and practice.  While some student-athletes receive scholarship money, they are often worth more than the money they receive and they are not getting a true education.  In addition, the time commitment of being a student-athlete makes it very difficult to get a job.  The amount of hours student-athletes put in is equivalent to a full-time job.  If student-athletes were paid, they would stay in school longer and improve college athletics overall.  The opposing argument claims that paying athletes huge salaries cannot be done, which I agree with.  Instead, I suggest allowing college athletes to accept money or other benefits and give them the ability to market themselves to the public.              

