Being the quarterback of a championship winning team is the most challenging feat a football player can accomplish.  In 2016, Denver Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning carried his team to a victory in Super Bowl 50, and University of Alabama quarterback Jake Coker led his team to a win in the inaugural College Football Playoff. The two players have a lot of things in common. Manning and Coker spend countless hours working out in the offseason getting themselves in shape for the season. During the season, Manning spends his days at the Broncos practice facility where he attends two practices, works out, and reviews film for upcoming games.  Unlike Manning, in addition to spending over 40 hours a week on football, Coker also has to balance the life of being a college student.  They are also alike in the way that they bring millions of dollars to their respective teams through ticket and merchandise sales.  But, in their 2016 championship seasons, the salaries of the two championship quarterbacks were very far apart from each other. Peyton Manning earned a salary of $19 million from the Denver Broncos, $4 million in contract incentives and another $12 million in endorsements (Forbes).  Jake Coker earned a salary of $0 from the University of Alabama, $0 in endorsements, and an additional $0 in contract incentives.  Although those who oppose the payment of paying NCAA student-athletes have formulated a very strong case, NCAA student-athletes deserve to be paid and hired as employees because they are responsible with bringing large amounts of money to the school and they devote countless hours towards their sports every week, and are not given the opportunity to earn a proper education anyway. 

First off, critics believe that student athletes are not professionals, and do not deserve to be treated as such; any payment on top of a free education is unlawful and should not be a part of NCAA athletics. However, the day-to-day routine of a Division 1 athlete may cause one to think differently.  The NCAA rules state that collegiate athletes are not permitted to devote more than 20 hours a week to competition, official practices and workouts during the season. This changes to 8 hours a week during the offseason (New). However, according to NCAA surveys, division 1 football, men's basketball, women's basketball, and men's baseball players spend about 40 hours a week playing and practicing their sport during the season. There was no Division I, II, or III athlete that averaged less than 28 hours a week.  The same surveys show that most division I and division II athletes say they dedicate just as much time to their sports during the offseason as they do during the season (New). In 2014, a lawsuit was filed against the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill by two former players, stating that they were deprived of a meaningful education. This lawsuit was filed following the UNC academic scandal.  The school was caught signing athletes up for African-American Studies classes that only required a final paper, which was usually written by a UNC team tutor. Robert Orr, a lawyer for one of the players filing the lawsuit said "If these young men and women are going to come in and put in 30, 40, 50 hours, the least we can give them is a set of circumstances academically that really allows them to benefit educationally from what they have put into the athletics context" (Jacobs).   One of the main reasons that the NCAA does not recognize their student-athletes as professionals is because they fail to acknowledge that their regulations and rules are unrealistic and ignored. 

On top of spending over 40 hours a week on their sports, student-athletes are also faced with balancing their schoolwork.  For college classes, students are recommended to spend two hours of studying for each hour of class.  A full time student taking 12 hours of class and studying the recommended amount devotes 36 hours a week towards academics. For students, this is not a problem, but for student-athletes who already spend over 40 hours a week practicing and playing sports, this is very hard to manage.  With a combined workload of 80 hours a week, there is no time for these students to work part-time jobs to help pay for the expenses that are not already covered by their scholarships.  

In 2010, USA Today experienced the busy life of a NCAA student-athlete when they spent a day with Notre Dame offensive lineman Chris Stewart.  Stewart starts his day by beating the sun to the weight room, where he fits in an early morning lift before his 9:40 AM class. Once Stewart finishes class at 12:30 he heads to the film room to prepare for his huge rivalry game that weekend against Michigan. Stewart then goes to practice until 5:45. Following practice he heads straight to the training room to receive ice treatment, carrying with him his playbook and a textbook.  After a few hours in the training room, Stewart takes a one-hour break before spending a few more hours studying.  He allows himself a few hours of sleep before his 8:00 A.M class the next morning.  Stewart describes this as a "light" day to USA Today (Lopresti). While many argue that student-athletes are not professionals, it is clear that they devote as much time to their sports as any professional spends on their job. They should be accommodated for doing so. 

Next, those who oppose paying players believe if a NCAA student-athlete is good enough to deserve payment then that athlete is good enough to make it professionally, where they will receive the paychecks that they have wished for.  However, this is not always the case. With injury numbers, especially concussions through the roof, great players may get injured before ever attempting to enter professional leagues. Senior Notre Dame linebacker Jaylon Smith was projected to be a top 5 draft pick in this years NFL draft but injured his knee in his final game of the season.  In one play, Smith went from being guaranteed millions of dollars to being forced into rehab and to fight for a spot on an NFL roster. This is a huge risk for college athletes. A study from the International Business Times showed that one in twenty NCAA football players will suffer from a concussion in a given season. In 2010, the NCAA put in new guidelines to help prevent the student athletes from receiving head injuries.  As part of the new rules, players are informed about concussion symptoms at the beginning of every season, and were forced to sign a statement that says if they experience any of these symptoms then they will report it to the medical staff.  Also, athletes who do suffer from a concussion are forced to be removed from the sport and cannot return until a team doctor clears them to participate.  A study was done that looked at the concussion statistics of the Navy, Air Force, and Army football teams.  In 2010, before the rules were implemented, there were 23 concussions reported, and the next year there were 42 reported concussions from the three programs (Nierenberg). Preventing concussions may be impossible, but it is important for players and teams to report these injuries and take the proper steps to take care of the player's health. Research over the last 2 decades has shown that concussions have become more and more prominent and the negative effects that come with them have continued to get worse. An athlete's career can end on any given play, making it hard for big time prospects to stay in school when they have a guaranteed check waiting for them that may not be there when they finish school. 

When the idea of providing student-athletes with free tuition in return for athletic services came about, the main goal was to influence athletes to use their athletic skills to receive an education and earn a job in that professional field upon graduation.  Today, there is a large number of student-athletes that do not value their education like they should, and turn their focus to athletics, in hopes of making it to the professional level. Every athlete wants to make it professionally in sports, but that simply will not happen.   Making it professionally in sports and earning enough money to live off of for the rest of your life is extremely rare; only 100 out of every 5,000 athletes will make it to the professional level. The majority of college athletes will not achieve that. Earning a college education will make it much easier for athletes to make a living outside of sports following their athletic careers. Many believe that Universities are not setting up student athletes for success, but rather using their players for athletic success.   Dr. Nathan Tublitz summed it up perfectly, saying:

Schools aren't doing these kids any favors by admitting them when its unlikely that they will succeed academically.  We bring 17-year-old kids, some of them from the inner city and we wine and dine them.  They have female chaperones.  We put them up in fancy hotels.  They come here and see an incredibly fancy locker room with individual TV screens, air conditioning and video games.  They go in and see the new football stadium and the new $200 million basketball arena.  They see a medical training facility that is stunningly beautiful with waterfalls, treadmill pools, and the state-of-the-art medical and dental equipment.  They come here and are treated like royalty.  Until they break a leg or get put on the second string and they get set aside.  Many don't earn a degree.  They don't have the training or the skills to be independent after they leave the university.  They're lost.

 If paying players keeps athletes from giving up their education to leave early for a professional draft, then that will reinstate the core values of the NCAA. 

There are many good things that come with paying NCAA players that are often overlooked, including an increased level of competition on the field and in the classroom.  High school and college athletes will work harder to improve as a player in hopes of earning a bigger contract while playing in college.  As athletics become more competitive, Universities will benefit through boosted ticket prices and greater television contracts.  The Big Ten recently signed a 10-year contract with ESPN, worth over $1 Billion, and an additional 25-year contract with the newly formed Big Ten Network worth $2.8 Billion.  Successful athletic programs are a very efficient and cheap way of marketing for a University.  In 1984, Boston College Quarterback Doug Flutie won the Heisman Trophy, Walter Camp Award, Davey O'Brien Award and the Maxwell Award.  Following Flutie's amazing season, Boston College admission numbers increased by 25%, and the average SAT score of admitted freshman increased by 110 points. For small private schools such as Gonzaga, there is not a price tag that can be placed on players such as Adam Morrison and John Stockton. Without great Gonzaga basketball teams led by these star players, most people would have never heard of the tiny private Roman Catholic school in Spokane, Washington.  NCAA student-athletes are responsible for helping attract applicants and students to their respective Universities and should be awarded for the massive amount of free marketing that they contribute.  

There are many that argue that Universities do not profit from sports other than football and in some cases basketball, making it nearly impossible to have enough money to afford to pay student-athletes.  Student-Athletes are responsible for bringing millions of dollars to the NCAA, Athletic Conferences, Universities, towns, and small businesses through ticket and merchandise sales, and for bringing fans and tourists to their respective towns and schools.  In 2015, the NCAA reported a revenue of $989 million, and the University of Alabama reported a revenue of $143.3 Million. This is more than every NHL team, and 25 of the 30 NBA teams. If NBA and NHL teams find the money in their budgets to pay a roster of million dollar contracts, then major athletic departments should profit enough to provide their top players with some extra spending money. 

When the NCAA was founded, most people were equally opposed to paying coaches as they were players.  Now, in 40 of 50 states, the highest paid government position is the head football or basketball coach at a state university. In 2013, the average salary for a BCS eligible football coach was over $2 million.  University of Alabama head football coach Nick Saban boasts the highest salary out of any NCAA coach, averaging $7 million per year.  Dr. Nathan Tublitz described the situation, saying: 

College basketball players watch the coach roaming the sidelines in his $1,500 custom-make suit.  They read about his $500,000 salary and $250,000 perk from a sneaker deal.  They watch the schools sell jerseys with the player's numbers on them.  They see the athletic director and NCAA officials getting rich and you wonder why they might ask; where's my share? What am I, a pack mule?

Although coaches work very hard and in some cases deserve the salary that they receive, they cannot match the time and hard work put into the team by the student-athletes.  In 2014, NC State hired Dave Doeren as their head football coach, promising him a base salary of $840,000 per year.  Doeren has a chance to make an additional $650,000 per year in incentives if his players meet the necessary grade requirements.  While coaching contract incentives for team academics is a good way to increase team grades and academic focus, it would only be fair to instead award players for their hard work in the classroom.  

While it is clear that NCAA student-athletes deserve to be paid, the problem is how.  There are many different types of ways that players can be paid, and each have their many pros and cons.  A free market would allow teams to offer whatever player they wanted as much or as little money as they want to.  Schools would recruit players and if they felt like that player was worth more than just a full scholarship, then they could offer them an hourly wage or even a salary.  Another way would be a socialistic approach, paying every player of every sport a flat hourly wage. Although these systems will force an employer-employee relationship that does not currently exist.  There is also the idea of the Olympic system, which would not pay players, but it would allow them to make money from endorsements and accept gifts and money.  The last solution to the issue would be to allow agents to pay players, saving the NCAA and the schools from having to pay them, but allowing those that show promising talent the ability to make money.

The first solution to look at is the free market system, which has its tradeoffs. A free market system would allow universities to offer whatever player they want as much or as little money as they feel necessary. If a university believes that a certain player will be so beneficial to their program that they want to offer them money, then they can offer them an hourly wage or yearly salary contract during recruiting. If a player does not receive a monetary offer from the top teams, then he can play for a free education, or go to a smaller school that may offer them money.  However, there are many issues that come with this system, including fairness and Title IX problems. Non-revenue generating sports spend just as much time devoted to their sports as football and basketball players, and are going to want to be paid the same amount of money.  Also, no matter how hard the players and coaches try, the paid players and unpaid players will be separated and treated differently on the field and in the classroom.  

Next, there is the idea to pay all players of every sport a flat hourly wage, whose cons far outweigh the pros.  The system of paying every player the same amount would keep everything fair, but the socialistic approach is far too unrealistic. The student-athletes would be happy, but athletic departments would lose tremendous amounts of money on programs other than football and basketball.  Universities would be forced to shut down many non-revenue generating sports, and collegiate athletics as we know it would soon cease to exist.  If schools were to pay each player $8 an hour, each player would make around $11,000 per year, costing a school with a large athletic department over $5 million a year.  This would force smaller schools to have to shut down many, if not all, of their athletic teams. While this may seem like a good idea at first, it will do nothing but ruin college athletics.  

Another possible solution to the problem is the Olympic market, allowing players to make money off of endorsements and make deals with companies and boosters.  Student-athletes have no time for a part time job, but many players could make hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars for just a few hours of their time.  In 2013 Johnny Manziel was caught signing over 1,100 autographs for Drew Tieman, who paid the young quarterback over $10,000.  It is borderline illegal for the NCAA to not let their athletes make money off of their own celebrity. While this particular type of market may not be fair for all the players that do not get paid, it is much more fair and sensible to allow players to make money from themselves rather than have to pay the players out of pocket.  If a player is that recognizable in the community that he/she would be able to make money from themselves, then they are doing a well enough job of bringing attention and money to their respective universities and should be able to reap the benefits. 

A rather interesting approach to the topic is the idea of allowing players to sign with agents on their own.  Agents are always trying to make money, and allowing them to sign collegiate athletes that show enough promise that they are worth investing in would help both sides.  If a player is good enough to be signed by an agent, then it shows that their worth to an athletic program is very valuable and they are deserving of such reward.  There are already tons of agents out there successfully and unsuccessfully bribing NCAA student-athletes, so putting rules and regulations on this is better for everyone.  Again, this system is not fair to the majority of student-athletes that are not good enough to receive payment, while allotting the same amount of time and dedication.  This kind of system will also cause paid and unpaid players to be treated differently both on and off the field, but this system allows top players to receive money for the millions of dollars that they bring in to their Universities and the NCAA, without the schools or NCAA having to pay them anything.  There are many players currently playing NCAA sports that have and continue to accept cash and other benefits from boosters and coaches.  Thursdays NFL Draft did nothing but support this when text messages were leaked from Ole Miss star Offensive Tackle Laremy Tunsil's phone proving an exchange of money between the student and his coaches. When asked about the text messages, Tunsil did not deny the improper payment.  

Overall, after looking at all the different methods of paying players, the only system that would work in the near future is allowing agents to pay and endorse top athletes. The idea of paying all players of all sports a flat fee will only put athletic departments and universities in debt, and it will ruin collegiate sports at the same time.  If the NCAA allowed schools to pay only the top players, there would be too much outcry from the non-paid athletes, especially those on non-revenue generating sports teams for payment to even be worth it.  The Olympic style system could also be effective in the NCAA, allowing players to make money from themselves and their well earned fame and popularity.  However, I believe that allowing agents to pay the top NCAA players solves many of the current issues. The NCAA and universities will not be responsible for paying players, top players are paid, and un-paid players will work even harder to get better, increasing the level of competition.  This system would obviously need strict rules and guidelines concerning the agents.  Student-athletes will only be able to sign with agents that are already cleared by the NCAA.   Agents will not be allowed at any practice or team workout, and will be prohibited from all locker rooms, keeping them out of the coach's hair. 

Although finding an efficient way to pay NCAA Student-Athletes is the main focus at this point, it will be interesting to see the effect it has on the student-athlete's education.  Currently, when players commit to a University, they are offering up their athletic service in exchange for a free education.  Though, when you look at the cold hard truth, the student-athletes do not receive a proper education. In the eyes of the coaches, those athletes are there to play their respective sport.  Athletic departments are supposed to treat their student-athletes as students first, helping them focus on their education, but in reality players are forced to miss classes and study hours, instead devoting that time towards their sports.  

Due to the fact that the players will not be paid by the Universities, the shift from treating the student-athletes as students to treating them as employees will not need to occur.  It is no secret that athletic programs are more concerned about what their scholarship athlete does on the field rather than what they learn in the classroom. The "model" that links the athletic department and their paid athletes will not change, given the fact that these student-athletes are treated as athletes first. Stanford alumni and Seattle Seahawks star Richard Sherman said this when asked about the issue "You're not on scholarship for school and it sounds crazy when a student-athlete says that, but those are the things coaches tell them every day: you're not on scholarship for school." (Volk) 

When considering all of these facts it becomes sensible that college athletes deserve a monetary reward for their hard work. Countless hours they spend perfecting their games results in the athletes not being able to support themselves financially or academically. Not only does the time commitment restrict job opportunity, but it also restricts the quality of education received. On top of that, many successful college athletes lose a chance at going pro when they sustain career ending injuries. These injuries can cause life-altering trauma, yet the athletes are not compensated. Universities make millions of dollars on their student athletes, yet none of that money is put back into the education system. Instead, the coaches and athletic directors receive the majority of these funds which come directly from student-athlete success. After exploring these facts, it becomes obvious that student-athletes deserve compensation. The problem is coming up with a system that pays the players while being fair and logical at the same time.  After exploring many options, it is clear that the Olympic system and the idea of letting agents pay athletes are the two systems that would be most effective, giving the players the compensation that they deserve and keeping the athletic departments from losing money at the same time.  

