Within the world today sports are a major role in everyday life in some sort of manner whether it be watching, playing, or even betting on sports. At the top of the list lies college sports within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). With all the light shining upon the NCAA, its student athletes, and their prospect of making it into professional sports leaves many people wondering should student athletes be paid? What added benefits and negative outcomes come along with paying student athletes? Student athletes are apart of an organized sports team along with maintaining responsibilities of a full time student, responsibilities and pressure of being a full time athlete, and being held to a higher standard than all else at any given university or college. Within the circumstances given, I believe that student athletes have the right to get paid for there dedicated service as a student athlete, contributions to the NCAA's billion-dollar revenue, and its positive impact on being able to educate young players on personal finance for their years to come in the professional sports world.

Greg Lush in his peer review article "Reclaiming Student Athletes' Rights To Their Names, Images, And Likenesses, Post O'Bannon V. NCAA: Analyzing NCAA Forms For Unconscionability" from Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal gives pivotal information regarding the start of the NCAA and its revenue within the past years. The NCAA was founded in 1906 as the Intercollegiate Athletic Association to address the violence of college football at the time. The NCAA formally took its name in 2010 and from there sought to enforce and instill rules in collegiate sports to set a national standard for all to abide by. The NCAA has and always continues to be a non-profit organization that is completely voluntary to join with many colleges and universities joining due to their vast resources and superior competition. With that being said the NCAA as of 2013 has over 1,112 colleges and universities apart of the organization on various levels of divisions such as Division I, II, and III (Lush 771). The NCAA has over 460,000 student athletes within its organization and remains the largest collegiate sporting organization in the world. "In 2012, the NCAA generated $871,687,872 in revenue. The NCAA received $708,860,595 or 81 percent of that total, from selling media rights" (Lush 772). With the NCAA being a nonprofit organization the money generated circulates back towards the colleges and universities both directly and indirectly. Modern day technology and media has been the leading factor for the NCAA's success with 81 percent of there total revenue coming from media selling rights which just seem to keep growing exponentially every year.

Anyone who is familiar with college sports or sports in general for that matter knows about the NCAA March Madness Tournament that takes place every year beginning in March and ending in April. Mike Benedykciuk a writer from The Free Daily Press discusses in his article "The Blue Line: College Athletes Should Be Paid" that many student athletes during there time of playing and practicing sports are missing out on essential class time. Benedykciuk discusses that in 2013 alone the NCAA March Madness tournament generated $1.15 billion in revenue from ads. Benedykciuk main argument revolves around the question, why should student athletes not be compensated when they miss more than 10 days of classes if they make it farther into certain tournaments and playoffs, especially when the NCAA stresses its importance on the student aspect of the student athlete. Benedykciuk shows the importance of student athletes missing class by stating, "Further, since less than 2 percent of college athletes actually turn professional, 98 percent of student-athletes will have to use their degree, despite not learning the material to the same extent their non-athlete colleagues did" (Benedykciuk). This right here is the overlying question that sparks so much debate on the topic of whether or not student athletes should be paid. The fact that less than 2 percent of student athletes will continue to play professionally yet they miss class because of the athletic responsibilities. An average college student spends countless hours on studying alone without the added factor of having to play a major sport in college. Not only do college athletes practice for more than 40 hours a week on there sport, but they also are affected by stress symptoms and an intense work load.

Many different opinions can be taken on the matter at hand when it comes to paying student athletes because student athletes have never formally been paid before. Mainstream media talks about the scandals of schools bribing students and family members with money and various sorts of other payments, local NFL quarterback Cam Newton for example, but never has there been a formalized system within the NCAA that has given students a salary on a yearly basis. The Debate Club of U.S. News & World Report covered the issue at hand and asked the question what should be done. The main question they posed was why do student athletes not get paid when the NCAA brings in six billion dollars in revenue each year? Of course the topic is up for debate however when looking at the benefits such as early development in personal finance where players could take courses to learn the aspects of personal finance to help them when they become pro seems like a promising and hopeful idea.  

With the players receiving none of the money that was created because of them the NCAA and the high ranking employees of the organization are able to pocket million dollar salaries yearly. Even with the NCAA being a nonprofit organization the high authorities within the organization generate salaries in the millions of dollars yearly because of the immense size of the organizations yearly revenue. Stanley Eitzen from Sports and Athletes discusses in his article "College Athletes Should Be Paid" how the NCAA is set up as a giant corporation with its many workers. The student athletes represent the workers of the bunch and with the workers creating all the revenue but without having to pay the workers the business is able to keep more money for themselves. Additionally, Eitzen talks about the manner in which schools and coaches are given large amounts of money for certain aspects within the games. For example, coaches are given yearly salaries with a contract, as well as any bonuses that are given for making it far into tournaments. Not only are coaches given million dollar salaries and bonuses, but they are also entitled to receive endorsements from sponsors to pocket even more cash. None of the compensations are given to the students, of which they are not allowed to have an agent, sponsorship, or endorsement deal until in their professional career. Even when the teams make it far into the tournaments or even win the tournaments no money is given to the players but instead the coaches as well as the university they play for.

Within the world of colleges sports there have been many who have shared ideas with the game being open to a variety of different opportunities. Within Kenneth Cooper's article "Should College Athletes Be Paid to Play" from Diverse: Issues in Higher Education he has quotes from past players, coaches, and litigators that deal with the courts rulings on student athletes and their court and tax views as workers of an industry. Within the article Donald Remy, the NCAA's general counsel and vice president for legal affairs states:

The NCAA, in accordance with courts that have addressed the issue, believes that student-athletes are not employees, under the law, and that they should not be treated as employees either by the law or by the schools they attend," Remy says. "Moreover, taxing authorities do not consider the benefits student athletes receive to be taxable compensation. (Cooper)

The debate of whether or not to pay student athletes in a legal sense is very much open to interpretation for those who choose to look at the student athletes of employees of the NCAA. The law deals with different labor rules, as well as tax returns and salaries that would make student athletes employees of the NCAA or the university they attend themselves. Jerry M. Hunter, former general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, who served under former President George H.W. Bush states, "I think that neither the National Labor Relations Act nor common law supports their position that student-athletes are employees" (Cooper). This is open to discussion based upon the laws that are stated. It is explained by Kenneth Cooper that common law has three components to be met, "Common law has three tests: the right of others to control a person's activities, whether that person is compensated and if that person is economically dependent on that compensation" (Cooper). It is explained within the article that law professors find this to meet the standards because college athletes are controlled mostly by there coaches, most are given scholarships which covers the compensation aspect of the argument, and players depend on these funds for there school and housing that comes with the scholarship. This is the tricky part to understand because although many scholarships' are given out not all student athletes are given scholarship's as well as not all are given full scholarship's that pay for tuition, housing, books, and eating fully. Regarding the information above I believe that student athletes are in the discussion of being paid due to there status as a worker under the NCAA according to the common law in which they are under control by there coaches and universities alike, there lack of full scholarships for full compensation within the four years at school, as well as the dependency on money for furthering there academic and athletic career within the university and the NCAA as an organization.

Starting in 2009 and spanning until 2014 there was the O'Bannon vs NCAA case, which took the media by storm in the sports world. Jason M. Breslow a writer for Frontline discusses in his article "NCAA Lawsuits Asks, Should Student-Athletes Be Paid?" that the plaintiffs in the O'Bannon vs NCAA argue that players deserve a portion of revenue due to the NCAA selling there "likeness" in broadcasting as well as video games. The NCAA claims that although they do create large amounts of money the money is redistributed back into the flow of different college championships as well as to the colleges and universities themselves. The whole understanding comes from whether or not you view the student athletes as a worker of the university or college and therefore would need compensation for the work as well as for the university to make money off of their image. The judge came with the ruling that the NCAA violated antitrust laws and ordered the NCAA to offer full time scholarships to any student athletes when available as well as cover cost of living expenses which was not covered before by the scholarships as well as place a $5,000 into a trust depending upon the eligibility of the player given that year.

Understanding the NCAA insists upon understanding the universities and the various colleges that coincide under there rules with regards to sports. When talking about the NCAA the majority of names presented are those of prominent Division I schools regarding football and basketball as they are the leading factors in the total revenue in college sports. The NCAA also however controls many schools in Division II and III with less interest to the common sports fan as well as many other sports that they sanction. Horace Mitchell and Marc Edelman take on two opposing viewpoints on the issue within their article "Should College-Student Athletes Be Paid?" from U.S. News Digital Weekly. Mitchell offers the side of not paying student athletes because despite what people think the athletic programs of schools within Division I, II, and III are not making tremendous amounts of money to give out. Mitchell explains that student athletes are seen as amateurs under the NCAA and are given compensations in different forms than pocketed money like professional athletes: 

Student-athletes are amateurs who choose to participate in intercollegiate athletics as a part of their educational experience, thus maintaining a distinction between student-athletes who participate in the collegiate model and professional athletes who are also students. (Mitchell)

This however is what Marc Edelman says the NCAA uses to hide behind a "veil of amateurism" which leaves the major money to be taken by few administrators, coaches, and athletic directors as well. Marc Edelman believes in the system of the law looking through various acts such as the Sherman Antitrust Act which states, "every contract, combination or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce is declared to be illegal" (Edelman). Edelman goes on to state, "The argument in favor of allowing colleges to pay their student-athletes comes down to economic efficiency, distributive justice and a reasonable interpretation of antitrust laws" (Edelman). This coincides with the past article by Kenneth Cooper which deals with the legal litigations in terms with court understanding and tax compensations. 

In 2014 Meet The Press dove in to the topic on whether or not student athletes should be paid in the midst of the March Madness tournament with Obama aide Reggie Love, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and NCAA President Mark Emmert. During the debate many topics where brought to light and the major focus that kept being reiterated was that student athletes must develop their educational skills and make that a high priority with respects to earning a degree. It was suggested that the NCAA be willing to pay for all necessary educational purposes further than just simply graduating from college with a bachelor's degree but for student athletes to pursue masters and PhD's as well. Mark Emmert insist that student athletes not be deterred by hopes of not making it into the pro's but to use the ability of being a student athlete to the fullest and to compensate all its advantages. NCAA President Mark Emmert clarified that money generated from huge tournaments, such as the March Madness tournament taking place at the time of the debate, are redistributed either directly or indirectly back to the colleges and universities. When asked about the one billion dollars in revenue seeming disingenuous NCAA President Mark Emmert replied by saying:

You're making almost a billion dollars in TV revenue most of which comes from March Madness strikes people as disingenuous.>> A lot of confusion where that money goes. Absolutely March Madness generates a lot of revenue. That is used to support all of the other tournaments, division one, two, and three. It's a young man, young women playing golf, volleyball, lacrosse, ice hockey, all of those tournaments, everything that goes on in college sport is supported by the revenue. (Emmert)

The facts show that tremendous amounts of money are being given out to the school administrators as well as coaches that all come from the revenue pouring in yet none of the student athletes can be compensated for their part in creating this illustrious revenue. 

The understanding of paying student athletes come from the understanding of the universities themselves and how they hold themselves to a high standard. Ekow Yankah of The New Yorker wrote in his article "Why N.C.A.A. Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid- The New Yorker" that universities would be wrong to pay their student athletes because it diminishes the traditions and the overall purpose of the university. Yankah states: 

And yet I believe that the drive to pay college athletes is a grave mistake -- not because it misdiagnoses the disease but because it suggests that the only cure is to put the patient out of his misery. It fails, first of all, to recognize the value of sports as a part of education. (Yankah)

Yankah believes that paying the student athletes on leads to who is the highest bidder to obtain the next recruits of the university and takes away from what they are truly there to do, learn. With regards to Yankah's findings I believe the paying of student athletes does not dimish the traditions and the value of the university it enhances the understanding for these young student athletes. With the implementation of paying student athletes other course along the lines of money management and contract negotiations could be offered to better the understanding of young athletes whom will later enter into the professional atmosphere. Further more the student athlete's right as a worker of the organization which entitles he/she to money overrules the universities right to maintain its tradition and value as an academic source. 

In order for the NCAA to be able to pay the players associated with the universities and colleges within the NCAA there needs to be a set way to pay players. The debate that revolves around this would be how do you pay athletes in different divisions and with different skill levels however; I feel as if the matter is simple in order to create a system of pay. Trying to create a salary pay role from player to player and division to division would be to much of a task so I propose that the NCAA allow the players and family members to benefit off of their name and likeness. A percentage of the money made from ads, video games, and even merchandise with a player's name on it should be given to him in compensation for his hard work and dedication. With sales being 1% of the entire revenue that leaves $8.71 million that can be split up amongst the players who sold merchandise for their name and numbers. It is important to keep in mind that currently the NCAA does not sell jerseys or shirts with player's names on them, only the number that they wear.

The NCAA states that being a nonprofit organization they circulate a majority of the money earned for various tournaments such as March Madness and send the money back to the universities and colleges. This is true but as Marc Edelman explains in his article of Forbes called "21 Reasons Why Student-Athletes Are Employees And Should Be Allowed To Unionize" that not all the money is being directly circulated back into the classrooms and or sports programs themselves. Edelman states, "A substantial share of college sports' revenue stay 'in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches'" (Edelman). One of the more shocking facts is the University of Alabama well known in the sports world for its dominating football performances over the past year created a reported $143.3 million in athletic revenue last year. This substantial payout was more than all 30 NHL teams and 25 of 30 NBA teams again with zero of this money getting handed to the players correctly. Just for comparison lets take a look at the Boston Bruins organization a member of the NHL. Using an article from Forbes called "The Business of Hockey" we can compare the Boston Bruins to the University of Alabama. In 2015 the Bruins created 107 million in athletic revenue and with 23 players on the roster that would come out to about $4.65 million a year to each player if divided up equally amongst players. This seems like a fair salary for being in a pro sport with the hours and skill level needed to compete at such a high level. In 2014 the University of Alabama created $143.3 million in athletic revenue and with an average Division I school football team having 110 players this would equal about $1.3 million to be given to each player. This would obviously take away the salaries of the administrators, athletic directors, and coaches, but it is safe to assume that with the money generated all the players could easily earn around $1 million a year. 

It can be seen the student athletes are held to extremely high standards, experience massive amounts of school and sports related stress, and are expected to complete all tasks handed their ways yet still not compensation can be given when all the facts turn in favor of them. The NCAA, universities, colleges, and the general public must understand and keep the debate alive whether or not student athletes should be paid because there is a great injustice for student athletes today. The debate on whether or not student athletes should be paid is in the beginning stages and even though nothing has changed yet if the door to the debate is left open change will come. As Pauline Kael, a film critic for the New Yorker, has stated, "Where there is a will, there is a way. If there is a chance in a million that you can do something, anything, to keep what you want from ending, do it. Pry the door open or, if need be, wedge your foot in that door and keep it open" (Kael). There is always a need for change and there will always be change so long as there are people to fight for the change necessary.

