"Johnny Football", Also known as Johnny Manziel was the most polarizing in all of sports during his freshman year at Texas A&M University. He carried his team to victory in Tuscaloosa, the home of the college football juggernaut, University of Alabama, propelling himself to be the first freshman ever to win the Heisman Trophy. It was the summer of sophomore year, that the first controversy of Johnny's troubled life was brought into the public eye. It was said that Johnny received money for signing autographs in the offseason, which is against the rules set by the National Collegiate Athletic Association. This sparked a huge national debate whether college students should be compensated for playing, or paid to play sports, or receive monetary value of any kind to play. 

This topic has long been debated and is nothing new to sports fans. Although debated, there has not been a single consensus of what should be done. This is because there are so many different factors that have to be discussed to even remotely come close to a decision. With so many factors, it leads to everyone giving a different option for giving compensation to college athletes that they think would work. Then there is the people who are against giving college athletes compensation for playing for their respective college. College athletes should be able to receive compensation but have it based off the image and likelihood of these college athletes. The Universities are making money off the players image. For example, Texas A&M was reported making $37 million dollars off Johnny Manziel. The jersey and shirt sales but mostly it was the media exposure generated by Johnny Manziel, leading his team to a bowl game, winning the Heisman Trophy, and ultimately being one of the most polarizing athletes in all of sports. NCAA went so far that if you searched Manziel in the NCAA store website, his #2 jersey would pop up on the screen, yet his name was not on the back of the jersey. If they are making money off of the players image and likeliness, shouldn't the player be able to receive something for their image. 

Jeff MacGregor, a writer for ESPN, speaks on behalf of the students. He recognizes the NCAA is wrong and how it deals with its rulings and dealing with players. In his article, he talks about how college sports need to scale back the size of the sports, but acknowledges that it is not possible. The solution, according to him, is to get rid of the NCAA and sell the college TV deal, and sports such as basketball, football to the professional leagues. Even though he is against the NCAA, he is in favor of the players. He believes the time table for the college athletes is absurd and offers the proposal that the athletes will receive the scholarship but will have it so they can use it whenever they want, but does not believe compensating the athletes is beneficial in any way (MacGregor). 

The common college sports fan is aware that the NCAA has done nothing to help the case against them. The "nonprofit" organization has made close to a billion dollars in 2015. The exact number is 989 million dollars in revenue, and the total expenses for the year were 908.6 million dollars leaving roughly 80.5 million left over. The left over money is not transferred to struggling colleges, or the struggling student athletes, but instead is put into a NCAA fund to help for a financial problem (Stratchan). 

The reason I bring this up, regarding to selling the TV and disbanding the NCAA, is that the NCAA is too big to do this. The NCAA is a business enterprise, that cannot just be taken down, with the simple fact that they make too much money, along with the universities to allow them to be broken up. I am, however, all for college athletes getting a degree, but Jeff's proposal of getting the degree anytime they want on scholarship does not make sense. It does not take into account that if the player makes it to the professional level, and is getting paid millions, it is now exploiting the college, and getting it for free when the player is fully capable to pay for it. This solution does not help anyone, in which the NCAA, although corrupt, will more than likely never disperse, and scholarships are for when the athlete is in school, and needs help financially.

The most proposed solution would be a salary cap method. One article by Joe Nocera, a writer for The New York Times, illustrates how the salary cap would be set to pay the players, and recruit the players. He wants the boosters to pay into the salary caps instead of going against the NCAA sanctions and paying the players underneath the table. Just to clarify, a booster is a person that has financial stability to offer a player incentives, from money to a car and even in some extreme cases houses, to come to the school to play. He too wants a longer time period for players to gain a degree (Nocera). 

The longer period to gain an education is understandable. The schedules set by colleges are extremely difficult. The salary cap for payment and recruiting of players is what does not work. It will force out the non revenue sports, and only leave the big sports such as football and basketball. This is not fair to all the athletes that are able to attend college through athletic ability.  The other sports should not be thrown out just because they do not garner the profit margins the big sports do. 

The CEO of the NCAA, Mark Emmert, is not in favor of the concept of compensating the athletes. He wants to keep college sports as the foundation of what it is, amateurism. By paying college athletes, it opens up a case of agents taking advantage of the athletes sooner, would cause cheating in the recruiting process, ultimately going against the sanctions set by the NCAA (Emmert). However, the one thing people do not look at is what the players want. In a survey done, representing all of the Big 10 schools besides Nebraska, found that from the emails they sent 49.29% of athletes favored the idea of pay to play. This can be looked as an example of how compensation will further exploitation of college athletes, as well as go against what a large portion of a power 5 conference athletes want (Druckman, et al). The survey mentions that these numbers are probably due to the psychological theory of "spiral of science" (Druckman, et al). It states that people say things or do not say in the athlete situations to gain approval of peers, such as coaches and the university. If you look at the numbers for seniors or seniors that recently graduated, they had a higher percentage in favor of pay for play. It shows that it is after the college that the players realize something wasn't right.

The problem with Mark's article is that he is extremely biased. The CEO of the NCAA, who governs all the players and makes millions of dollars off the players, are obviously not going to be in favor of it. Mark, for a non profit organization made roughly an astounding 1.8 million in compensation in 2013 (Berkowitz). He also is going to protect the organization is running and openly admit that what they are doing is not working and needs to be fixed. He would be lose all credibility going against the company.

Let's look at the common ground for people who do not know much about the subject. The initial response from the general public against giving compensation, would be that they receive tuition, books, room and board, all to play sports. It may also be academic scholarships are given out the same as athletic scholarships, but no one thinks of giving the top kids in the university compensation. The players garner a lot more revenue for the school and are worth a lot more than the value of a scholarship. A study done by Drexel University's Sports Management in coalition with other universities, and college football players found that the average athletic scholarship is $23,204 per year. While the average division one football and basketball player are worth "$137,357 and $289,031 respectively. Therefore, after counting the value received from a full athletic scholarship, the average FBS football and men's basketball player loses $114,153 and $265,827 of his annual fair market value, respectively."(Huma, Stuarowsky). So what this is saying on average, the division one universities are making more than $100,000 per year on each football player. This is not including the star players, such as Johnny Manziel, who would garner upwards of $500,000 on the open market. It is an "indictment of the principle of amateurism used by the NCAA to enforce a system that distributes the wealth generated by big money college sport programs away from the players and redirects it to coaches, administrators, conference commissioners, bowl executives, colleges and universities, and corporate entities."(Manfred). It limits the athletes to being able to support themselves from the revenue they created, when in reality the players are struggling to live, and have to accept money and food outside of the scholarships, which is a violation of the NCAA and can lead to suspensions. It has been documented many times, in one such case Arian foster, was a University of Tennessee running back, who was breaking records in college, yet had no food in the fridge, because the NCAA did not allow him to work or take money. In the interview, Arian called the coach, telling him he and a couple other players had no food and the coach brought them tacos. What the coach did for Arian and his teammates is an unsanctioned act and could have lead to a penalty issued by the NCAA. Then the coach pulls up the next day in a new Lexus, while the players do not have food to eat (Schooled, The Price of College Sports). The argument of they get a scholarship and how that is enough for college athletes, just is a lie. The players are worth so much more to the university revenue wise, than just the scholarship. Also the scholarship does not help with everyday life, such as food that players cannot receive outside of the scholarship without getting in trouble with the NCAA.

The players are the ones playing. They are risking a serious injury and putting themselves out their to play the game. But they receive nothing and the coaches salaries keep inflating. So much so that the top coaches make the same amount if not more than professional sports coaches. Jim Harbaugh, who was the coach of the San Fransisco 49ers, was hired by the University of Michigan for roughly $5 million a year, but with his $2 million dollar signing bonus earned $7 million this past year, more than he received in a single year from the 49ers (Snyder). It is also to note that the number of college football coaches receiving more than $4 million per year has doubled in the past two years from 8 to 16 (Goodbread). The price for coaches keep increasing, yet they are not the ones playing or generating the revenue. Yes, having a big time coach such as a Jim Harbaugh, or Mike Krzyewski, Duke's Men's Basketball coach, helps recruit the players and make them want to go to the school, but they are not the ones going out every day playing with the potential to injure themselves, and lose the scholarship that allows them to be enrolled. The price of coaches are so skewed in the wrong direction that it is another insult to the college players, that do not receive anything for playing. 

It all comes down to the fact should college athletes receive compensation. The simple answer is yes, they should receive compensation in some way. The best way to do it, has already potentially been laid out by the Ed O'Bannon court case. Ed O'Bannon was a star basketball player for the UCLA Men's basketball team that won the National Championship in 1995, with Ed taking home Most Outstanding Player in the Final Four. It wasn't until later in life when he saw the NCAA Basketball game with the player with his number on it doing his signature move. He realized he had been taken advantage of and decided to sue for the rights to college players image and likelihood. He did not want anything out of the deal but just so that college athletes are able to be treated fairly (Shipnuck). The case was originally granted that the NCAA violated antitrust laws, and subsequently would be in favor of the students in some sort of compensation. However, the case was appealed by the NCAA, and the appeals court decided that they only have to pay up to $5,000 in cost of attendance revenue for the image and likelihood of the players (Mccann). I think this a victory for college athletes, in which they get recognized for more than just a player but as someone who has value and should be compensated for it. 

Athletes should be able to be compensated for their image. The problem is all the solutions just focus on the big two sports football and basketball. My solution is do something similar to the Olympics. The process can be looked back on the history of the Olympics with the effect of the NCAA, "amateur Olympics faced a similar set of issues: a nonsensical system; inconsistent enforcement; a losing game of free market whack-a-mole with athletes on the (utterly reasonable) take; growing public distrust and disgust" (Hruby). The Olympics were dealing with the constant pressure of the idea of amateurism in it and not allowing professionals to play. They took away Jim Thorpe's gold medals in 1912 for playing minor league baseball for $2, a similar move done by the NCAA in which they stripped star running back Reggie Bush of his Heisman Trophy for accepting money. However, as the Olympics slowly got rid of the amateurism, it all improved.

I am not saying that the players should get salaries. I think they should be able to do a commercial, or be able to be on the front of a video game, or being able to sign autographs for money. The Olympics do not pay the athletes they allow them to get paid and provide for themselves. This is exactly what the NCAA should be doing. This is also all inclusive of the sports offered at division one schools. Yes, the players of the basketball team and football team would receive more, but it still allows for the fans of the swimming team to get their autograph, or appear for a local swimming commercial. The smaller sports would no longer be second class to football and basketball but will be able to garner respect in the community that they are in. High school tennis, soccer, swimming, track athletes are going to look more to the college athletes in the area and look up to the college athletes. They will want to emulate them and be able to have the same shoes, attire that the players have. 

It is a much stronger case that allows everyone to benefit. The NCAA allows athletes to receive compensation but they do not have to be the ones doing it, exactly like the Olympics. The NCAA may not receive the $80 million dollar surplus but they will still generate multi-millions of dollars to help the universities. The college sports video games can come back, benefitting the athletes, the NCAA, and the company making the sports. The athletes are able to receive money that will allow them to go see a movie, have food for when they come home after practice or a road trip to a game, or swim meet and not go to bed hungry. The fans will be able to actually become closer to the players they like and respect. Business's will gain revenue by being able to say that the store is the favorite of "Ben Simmons", or another college sports figure, just like Olympic athletes are able to do, all based of their image and likelihood. The players would not be totally swayed by this because the intent is not for a player to make millions or hundreds of thousands. This would make players simply have money for food and other activities besides school and sports. As mentioned before, I think it is fair to say that the big division one schools have boosters that help recruit players. The big name players are already receiving some money from these boosters. This would not change a thing from a money standpoint, except turn it from unsanctioned by the NCAA, to an allowed occurrence that will benefit all parties involved in college athletics. This is what the NCAA, should be in favor for, not fighting to keep the money from the struggling college kid. This is the way to help college athletes, not a salary cap, not getting rid of the juggernaut that is the NCAA, or simply saying the NCAA cannot do that because the ultimate matter is college athletes are struggling and is not all glory that people make it seem. 

