Sports remain a major common interest among the world today in all varieties of ways such as watching, playing, or even betting on sports. At the pinnacle of the sports world lies college sports specifically 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? Such as the benefits of receiving a full scholarship to pay for all of one's academic needs, or the negative aspects of missing valuable class time to fulfill all of one's athletic responsibilities. Student athletes belong to an organized sports team along with maintaining responsibilities of a full time student, responsibilities and pressure of a full time athlete, and maintaining a higher standard than all else at any given university or college. Paying student athletes is essential because of the amount of hours dedicated to their school work and athletic responsibilities, their legal right of compensation for the NCAA making money from their image and likeness, because of its large amount of annual revenue distrusted back to the universities or colleges and allowing senior employees, high ranking athletic directors, and big time coaches the means to million-dollar yearly salaries, its comparison of annual revenue created by the universities or colleges to professional sports organization's who remain able to pay their players yearly million-dollar salaries, and the manner in which paying student athletes remains simple in the understanding that the NCAA could allow money created from player's imagine and likeness be allocated to them directly. 

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. Founded in 1906 the Intercollegiate Athletic Association, now known as the NCAA, sought to address the violence of college football present at the time. The NCAA formally took its name in 1910 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 will always remain a non-profit organization completely voluntary to join even as a non-profit many colleges and universities choose to join due to their vast resources and superior level of competition. As of 2013 the NCAA 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 in the organization and remains the largest collegiate sporting organization in the world. Due to the enormous size, indispensable resources, and superior level of competition the NCAA creates millions of dollars in revenue as Greg Lush states, "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). 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. The NCAA remaining a nonprofit organization plays a crucial role in the argument against paying student athletes with the reasoning that paying student athletes can not happen because the NCAA reallocates a majority of the revenue back into the universities and colleges, as well as the large tournaments the NCAA orchestrate themselves.

The March Madness Tournament, an annual tournament put on by the NCAA, remains a major sporting event in the sports world with a large number of high stakes gambling, intense day to day watching of the games, and a great source of media related business deals taking place for the NCAA. Mike Benedykciuk a writer for The Free Daily Press discusses in his article "The Blue Line: College Athletes Should Be Paid" that many student athletes miss valuable class time essential to their academic responsibilities in order to practice and participate in such tournaments. Benedykciuk discusses that in 2013 alone the NCAA March Madness tournament generated $1.15 billion in revenue from ads alone making this one of the top sporting events, along with the FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision) National Championship, orchestrated by the NCAA. Benedykciuk's main argument revolves around the question, why should student athletes not obtain compensation when they miss more than 10 days of classes in certain tournaments and playoffs. This comes across quite contradictory when the NCAA stresses its importance on the student athletes putting their school work at the utmost importance. 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 overlying theme of the NCAA expecting student athletes to do well in their academic studies, and then prevent them from going to class sparks debate on the topic of student athletes having the right of compensation. 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 around 3.6 hours on studying alone, as stated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in their article "Spotlight on Planning Ahead for College", without the added factor of having to play a major sport in college. Not only do student athletes practice for more than 40 hours a week they experience immense stress symptoms as well as a grueling academic workload.

With student athletes never receiving compensation before the debate on whether or not to pay student athletes remains confusing specifically on the notion of how it would happen. The Debate Club of U.S. News & World Report covered the topic on whether or not student athletes should receive compensation. The main question they posed pertains to why do student athletes not get paid when the NCAA brings in billion's dollars in revenue each year? The topic remains up for much debate, but certain factual evidence such as creating billions of dollars in revenue and not having the means to compensate the one's who make it all happen seems quite unjust.  

With the players receiving none of the money created because of them the NCAA and the high ranking employees of the organization pocket million dollar salaries yearly. Even with the NCAA remaining a nonprofit organization the high ranking employees within the organization generate million dollar salaries yearly because of the immense size of the organization's yearly revenue. Stanley Eitzen from Sports and Athletes discusses in his article "College Athletes Should Be Paid" how the NCAA shares similarities to a giant corporation with its many workers. The student athletes represent the workers of the corporation and with the workers creating all the revenue and receiving no pay the corporation keeps more money for themselves. Additionally, Eitzen talks about the manner in which schools and coaches obtain large amounts of money for certain aspects within the games. For example, coaches receive yearly salaries with a contract, as well as any bonuses given for making it far into tournaments. Not do coaches receive million dollar salaries and bonuses, but they receive endorsements from sponsors to pocket even more cash as well. Unlike the coaches' student athletes receive no compensation, can not have an agent, and forbidden from signing any sponsorship or endorsement deal until they reach the professional level. 

The debate of paying student athletes goes beyond just the sports world and ventures into the legal aspects regarding one's rights to compensation. In 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 student athletes receiving compensation remains very much open to interpretation for those who choose to look at the student athletes as employees of the NCAA. The law deals with different labor rules, tax returns, and salaries that would make student athletes employees of the NCAA or the university they attend. 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). If proven true this would negate the student athletes chance of using the National Labor Relations Act, which protects the rights of workers, and common law to obtain compensation for the NCAA. The debate remains controversial because both the National Labor Relations Act and common law remain open to interpretation. Kenneth Cooper states 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). Law professors find this to meet the standards because college athletes remain under control mostly by their coaches, most receive 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. Much stipulation remains around the aspect of scholarships covering the aspect of compensation because although many student athletes receive scholarships not all scholarships cover the full compensation needed from student athletes. With many student athletes coming from below the poverty line the scholarship enables them to go to the university and receive an education, however most lack the ability to buy necessities such as food and water outside of the university. I believe that student athletes remain in the discussion of receiving compensation due to their status as a worker under the NCAA according to common law in which they remain under control by their coaches and universities alike, their lack of full scholarships for full compensation within the four years at school, as well as the dependency on money for furthering their academic and athletic career within the university and the NCAA as an organization.

The debate on compensation for student athletes goes both ways regarding if student athletes should receive compensation or not. 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 giving compensation to their student athletes would affect the tradition and integrity of the university or college from an academic standpoint. 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 student athletes on leads to a highest bidder competition to obtain the next recruits of the university and takes away from the true academic integrity of most universities and colleges. 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 courses shaped around money management and contract negotiations could offer better understanding to young athletes who will later enter into the professional sports world. 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. 

Understanding the NCAA insists upon understanding the universities and the various colleges that coincide under there rules with regards to sports. Division I schools remain the focal point of the NCAA with a majority of the football and basketball games providing the NCAA with the spotlight and large contributions to the annual revenue. 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 do not make tremendous amounts of money to give out. The NCAA puts student athletes under the term amateur which results in not having to pay for the compensations of these student athletes as Mitchell states: 

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)

 However, Marc Edelman says the NCAA uses this to hide behind a "veil of amateurism" which leaves the major money for 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. Therefore, not compensating student athletes conflicts with the National Labor Relations Act, common law, and the Sherman Antitrust Act.  

Starting in 2009 and spanning until 2014 the O'Bannon vs NCAA case took the media by storm in the collegiate 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 becomes redistributed back into the flow of different college championships as well as to the colleges and universities themselves. This all turns back to the point made about student athletes needing to receive compensation for working under the NCAA which remains up for interpretation regarding the National Labor Relations Act and common law. In regards to the case the judge came out 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, and place $5,000 into a trust depending upon the eligibility of the player given that year. With this step taken by the O'Bannon vs NCAA case it offers hope and more insight into the interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act and common law with promising expectations for further compensation of student athletes.

In 2014 Meet The Press dove in to the topic on whether or not student athletes should receive compensation 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 reiterated time and time again revolved around the aspect that student athletes must develop their educational skills and make that a high priority with respects to earning a degree. Upon further discussion the suggestion made stated that the NCAA 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 get deterred by hopes of not making it into the pro's, but to use the advantage of receiving a scholarship 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, becomes 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)

Although this statement remains true the facts show that tremendous amounts of money become redistributed to the administrators, athletic directors, and coaches themselves, however none of the money generated can seem to find the student athletes who deserve it the most. 

In order for the NCAA to compensate the players associated with the universities and colleges within the NCAA a system of payment in the easiest and most efficient way possible must take place. The debate that revolves around this remains how do you pay athletes in different divisions and different skill levels efficiently. Trying to create a salary pay role from player to player and division to division would create to much discrepancy, 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 become compensation for their hard work and dedication. With sales being 1% of the entire revenue that leaves $8.71 million that can compensate 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 remaining a nonprofit organization they circulate a majority of the money earned for various tournaments such as the March Madness Tournament and send the money back to the universities and colleges. This remains 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 circulates 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 about 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 totaled more than all 30 NHL teams and 25 of 30 NBA teams again with zero of this money getting handed to the players directly. 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" 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 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 given to each player. This would obviously take away the salaries of the administrators, athletic directors, and coaches, however with the money generated all the players could easily earn around $1 million a year. 

Student athletes remain held to extremely high standards, experience massive amounts of school and sports related stress, and remain expected to complete all tasks handed their ways yet still no compensation for their hard work and dedication to responsibilities. The NCAA, universities, colleges, and the general public must understand and keep the debate alive whether or not student athletes should receive compensation because there remains a great injustice for student athletes today. The debate on whether or not student athletes should receive compensation remains 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 always remains a need for change and change will always come so long as people continue to fight for the change necessary.

