The idea of student athletes not receiving compensation remains very intriguing to me because I would've thought that by this day in age student athletes would receive at least a minor share of what they truly deserve. Upon looking into this subject closely I have found that no student athletes receive any sort of money in any way, shape or form from anyone. This had me very curious why no student athletes were receiving compensation when technically they're the ones doing all the work to earn the money for the NCAA. Upon reading several different articles I feel as if this makes me entitled to write about this argument and give an unbiased, research driven discussion.

My first article that I have found is "Should NCAA Athletes Be Paid?" coming from U.S. News & World Report a very trustworthy piece of evidence for its credibility as a major news outlet. Within the article the question becomes presented if NCAA Athletes should receive compensation due to the shear size of the company. The NCAA brings in 6 billion dollars annually and none of that ends up getting to the players themselves. The deeper the teams go into tournaments the more money they make, and the debate club remains split between the decision. This article offers the evidence needed to understand why student athletes should receive a portion of what they create such as the NCAA having an excess of money even while working as a nonprofit organization. The debate club of U.S. News & World Report holds high remarks as a source due to its nature of statistically true information as well as its comparison of both sides of the argument at hand. 

My second article I have found, "Why N.C.A.A. Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid" by Ekow Yankah from The New Yorker. Within this article evidence becomes presented stating that NCAA Athletes should not give compensation to the players because it takes away from the value of the school and the education system that universities and colleges alike strive to provide. Yankah argues that by paying the players one takes away from years of tradition and the integrity of that university and solely focus on handing out materialistic concepts. This leads to teams bribing new recruits solely on the basis of money and how much materialistic objects they can receive from the university or college. This article first and foremost helps my argument by offering a different viewpoint of the issue in the argument about student athletes receiving compensation. This allows the reader to understand the aspect of why paying student athletes could cause detrimental outcomes for the universities and colleges. This article gives a point of view from the university in a sense that offering money takes away from the true purpose of attending a university, education. Regarding the credibility of the article it remains a credible source coming from such a newspaper as The New Yorker, which remains a very popular news paper dealing with issues of sports, global news, health news, etc. 

Finally, my third article I have found, "College Athletes Should Be Paid" by Stanley Eitzen of Sports and Athletes. This article focuses on the aspect that the coaches and leaders of this massive NCAA organization bring in millions of dollars a year for themselves. All the while the NCAA remains a nonprofit organization and realistically the money should more directly be flowing into the hands of the universities and colleges for athletic and academic purposes solely. During the year NCAA coaches can accept sponsorship opportunities and pocket millions of extra dollars while players do not get to accept even the slightest gift from someone or have an agent. It also brings up the point that the further teams make it into there playoff rounds the more money they receive from outside sources and the coaches of these teams can receives bonuses upwards of millions of dollars on top of there already multi-million-dollar salary. This brings up the question of injustice in the organization in which the players do all the work yet their coaches and universities reap all the benefits of their dedication. Open to interpretation however on whether or not participating as a student athlete remains apart of the education process or if this hours and levels of dedication classify the student athletes as workers of the NCAA and their respective university or college. This article strengthens my argument by giving evidence that coaches and universities reap all the benefits of the players hard work and determination and posing the question of whether or not students should receive compensation for their contributions to the team, the university, and the NCAA.

The main question revolves around asking if NCAA student athletes should receive compensation or not really comes down to a matter of the integrity of the university and the reputation the university tries to maintain. In my last article it became mentioned about a great comparison given in the sense of economic terms regarding the status of the NCAA. The NCAA remains the enormous corporation and all of the players become the workers of this company. Without having to pay any of the workers that work for this giant corporation, the corporation remains able to pocket a substantial amount more than if they had to give out salaries to all the workers. Even if they decided to start paying student athletes there comes the dilemma of how to pay the athletes. With the three different divisions within the NCAA does that mean higher division players receive more than lower division, or does everyone receive the same salary given out amongst all the players. Another difficulty that comes up with paying student athletes revolves around the act of recruitment turns into what college will become the highest bidder with most student athletes needing money desperately. When looking at all the different perspectives of the various sources I have found my opinion upon the topic has not changed, but I can understand the difficulties of paying the athletes but also the constant criticism of not paying them as well. Upon looking back at my research question I would add more to my question than change it completely. I spend a lot of time talking about all the different reasons in which paying the student athletes is a step that needs to be taken. I would focus more along the lines of why paying student athletes is not such a bad thing and also gives reason why there are positive and negative aspects to both sides of the question.
