               How would you feel if you put your time and effort into a job 24 hours 7 days a week and all you compensation went into someone else's pocket? That's essentially what it is like being a division I college athlete. The largely debated topic of whether college athletes should be paid has been becoming increasingly relevant as time goes on due to allegations and violations that are becoming more prevalent. The rules sanctioned by the NCAA are starting to be seen by more and more people as controversial especially with the benefits the NCAA receives from the athletes. The NCAA and the athletes' schools are the soul benefactors from the athletes' blood, sweat, and tears that they put into their passion and I believe it needs to change. By looking at the revenue produced, rigorous hours given to athletes, NCAA restrictions, and athlete poverty; it can be seen that college athletes should be compensated for their enormous contributions to their respected universities revenue.

             First off, just taking a step back and viewing the big picture can see a few overall reasons athletes should be paid. College students are free to make a brand for themselves, market their work and make a profit. This is unless you are an athlete, where you have all of your abilities to make a profit from your hard work and talent stripped from you. As Kristine Mueller writes in her article "No Control over their Rights of Publicity: College Athletes Left Sitting the Bench", Student-athletes have virtually no control over the commercial use of their identities. They cannot, themselves, enter into agreements for endorsements or the like, but the universities they play for are able to enter into endorsement agreements and other contracts for the commercial uses of the players' identities. Ultimately, the student-athletes sign over their rights of publicity, in a sense, to the universities". This results in fans walking around in players jerseys and playing as them in videogames but the profit goes straight to the university. That athlete put their life's work to be in the position to have so much self worth only to have someone else make a profit from them. John Brill describes just how valuable these athletes are in his article "Should College Athletes Be Paid?", " ... in 2005 a draft ready football player is worth $495,000 and a draft ready basketball player is worth over $1.4 million to the NCAA respectively. This means that the scholarship value that player is receiving in return for play is nowhere near the players actual value". Athletes worth that much shouldn't be subject to no pay when they are doing the same exact thing as playing professional. This supports the term "plantation system", which is commonly used to describe division I athletics due to it's servant like structure. In any other market it would be preposterous for workers to not be compensated for generating millions of dollars.

               Secondly, division I athletes schedules are more rigorous than most peoples work schedules, for which they get paid for. Athlete's day-to-day schedules have little leeway for anything not necessary. Whether it's early morning workouts or trying to fit in class work, they have a lot to do with expectations to excel. Even if they have time to spare rules such as the 24 and 48-hour rules forbid them from going to have fun. One example of how much hours the athletes have to put in is football at Northwestern University described by Chris Isodore of CNN. "Take football players' orientation week. It consists of 14-hour days in early August -- often in blistering heat -- with just about every minute from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. devoted to football-related activity. Up until the season starts, the workload trails off to 50 to 60 hours a week. That eases to 40 to 50 hours a week once the season, and classes, begin. Weeks with road games include a 37-hour stretch that includes travel, practice, a 3-to-4-hour game and some time to sleep in a strange hotel"(Isodore 1). That's 10 to 20 more hours of work a week than a normal 40-hour full time job without the pay and this is just Northwestern, a prestige school with a good football program but is very heavy on academics. The hours at top tier powerhouses, such as Alabama or Ohio State, the hours are increased as long with the intensity. A huge counter argument to this is that college athlete's the have offseason of less demanding schedules to combat their rigorous commitment. This is true in the fact that their hours lower but in division I sports the offseason is still very much a constant grind with the need to stay in top shape and to be the best. An example of this can be seen in Isodore's article on Northwestern. "After the season ends, things let up -- but players still spend more time on football than most other students spend on a part-time job. There's 12 to 15 hours a week of January weight training, 15 to 20 hours a week preparing for spring football practice, and then 20 to 25 hours a week for spring and summer practice"(Isodore). This shows athletes are held to yearlong binding work schedules. They dedicate their life to their sport and have to fully give themselves to it. 

             With this in mind I feel it is safe to say being a division I athlete can be defined as a job, except they receive no compensation. Those who do get compensated are the NCAA and the schools themselves. The NCAA, "had revenue of nearly $1 billion during it 2014 fiscal year"(Berkowitz 1). This revenue that goes to the NCAA is used on some controversial purchases and salary distribution as it is.  In Dave Zirin's article "The shame of the NCAA" he describes such issues, "a total compensation for fourteen top executives of nearly $6 million, with the president earning $1.1 million. The association has lavished $35 million on a 130,000 square-foot expansion of its headquarters in Indianapolis."(Zirin 2).  This overflow of money can easily be worked into paying athletes rather than making offices look nicer. An immense portion of this income is made because of the college basketball tournament March Madness, which  "generates at least 90 percent of the NCAA's operating budget"(Zirin).  John Brill describes an example of just how much money that includes, "The three weeks of the NCAA Basketball Tournament, known as 'March Madness', generates over $770 million in TV rights deals alone. The only reasons why these exist are the athletes themselves, and they are reaping none of the benefits from these windfalls"(Brill 3). That shows large that operating budget actually is considering that this is only one of multitude of college sports. As far as the universities, their average total revenue just from football has more than doubled over the past 10 years. This demonstrates how much of a thriving market college athletics has become and with that brings a rise in controversy of athlete compensation. The income the schools receive is commonly pumped into salaries, specifically coaches, and facilities. Some coaching salaries are now surpassing the millions and you do need a good coach but at the end of the day no matter what the coach does the athletes are the ones who sacrifice their body and mind to the grind. 

              One of the largest arguments to not pay athletes is that they are 'student athletes'. These athletes dedicate their body to the highest level physically demanding competition and most of the time the only reason they are attending that school. The time spent practicing, training, traveling, and playing compared to the time for academics is completely lopsided. Athletes can't even pursue a major of the own choice if it interferes with their athletic schedule. As Kenneth Cooper writes "'Athletes don't have free choice of what major they take if the class conflicts with practice schedules', Amy McCormick says. 'That's one fact that flies in the face of that idea they're primarily students and secondarily athletes'"(Cooper).  Their whole school schedule is made to fit their athletic and with all the travel they miss a majority of class too. This also counter acts the argument that students are compensated through their education because clearly education is not the main focus. Both these arguments are also flawed because many athletes play their sport because they have to in order to pursue their athletic career professionally. Such players run the risk of wasting their professional value or even having their athletic career coming to an unfortunate end through injury. Compensating athletes would give assurance to those athletes that their sacrifice wasn't for nothing. The argument of players not being paid because they hold an amateur status is also exposed as a stretch. Amateur according to dictionary.com is, "a person who engages in a study, sport or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons". An easy way to demonstrate this is in basketball. Athletes only have to stay in college one year before they can enter the NBA draft. With that being said, when you see a 19 year old drafted as the first pick in the draft it's quite obvious he served his one-year just because he was required to. 

              Additionally, college athletes should be paid because many do not have another source of income. A majority of division I athletes come from low-income families and their scholarships are the only reason they are able to attend. This leaves them penniless at school because they do not have anytime to take on a job on the side and are unable to use their position to receive any money from endorsements or commercial retail. The result is athletes stuck in debt and even hungry. This problem became a popular topic within recent years when Shabazz Napier, an UConn basketball star, was interviewed days following his MVP performance that won the Huskies a national championship. In the interview he revealed how he would sometimes be starving due to the fact the meal plan that is provided doesn't allow for much food. "'I don't feel student-athletes should get hundreds of thousands of dollars, but like I said, there are hungry nights that I go to bed and I'm starving,' he said" (Ganim).  The fact that the MVP of the national championship game is going to bed starving while millions of dollars are being made off of him is absurd.  This is also a main contributing factor in most NCAA violations because athletes accept money from boosters or sign with agents. But when you are 18-22 year old who has no money and that money is right in front of you it's hard not to take what's given. If players were given the money they deserve this temptation wouldn't be there.

              Division I athletes need to be compensated for their colossal contributions to school revenue and for their own God given rights of being given what they worked for. There are many viable solutions on how to pay the athletes it's just a matter of when the NCAA and school will start to actually do something about it. The NCAA tries to stay away from answering the question and the President of the NCAA in 2010, Mark Emmert, even changed his view quickly after an uproar to his answer when asked about paying athletes. "In an interview on a PBS Frontline special, "Money and March Madness", a visibly agitated Emmert refused to reveal his own seven-figure salary on camera and insisted it would 'be utterly unacceptable ...  to convert student into employees ...  I can't say it often enough, obviously, that student athletes are students. They are not employees.' He quickly backpedaled, though, telling USA Today that at the April 2011 NCAA board meeting, he would 'make clear ...  that I want [paying players] to be a subject we explore."(Zirin 2). If the President of the NCAA is switching his side due to public critics his intent isn't to make a push for paying athletes. One solution is being carried out by Northwestern football players is forming a union. Their success has even resulted in a ruling in their favor. According to Sara Ganim, "the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Northwestern football players should be considered employees because of the hours they put in, the control the university has over them and the revenue they generate." This is a huge step for athletes but these athletes were only able to do so because they are a private institution. Another solution could either have the schools distribute wages based on income brought in by the sport or have the NCAA regulate a system of payment. Athletes are coming closer to getting that final push of influence to force change but that still is yet to come due to the NCAA stinginess on the subject. 

              In conclusion, these athletes are the reason watching college sports is so exciting and entertaining but a look behind the curtain shows a hamster running on a wheel. These althetes put in endless hours of the highest level of practice and training only to be making money for others. As acclaimed sports broadcaster Jay Bilas said, "When you ask the question of 'Should college athletes get paid?' it sounds like a mandate. For me it's always been why would you prohibit it?". Division I athletes put in more hours of work than most normal working class people and some can't even get enough food while millions of dollars are being made off them. The system is flawed and athletes need to start to voice their arguments and make themselves heard because they are the final push to win over a nation and get what is rightfully theirs.

