Why do college student-athletes deserve to be receiving pay? This is the question I will be answering in my paper, where I will defend college athletes and provide multiple reasons why our college athletes need to start receiving pay. Through my research I have found there are many contributing factors that go along with my argument. The problem regarding the NCAA's greed, in wanting to keep all the profits the athletes are making, the over payment of coaches and athletic directors, and the exploitation of college athletes who are essentially working a full time job they don't get paid for. 

This topic is interesting to me because in high school I played three sports and could've had the opportunity to move up to college athletics. Therefore if I had decided to play sports in college this issue would've had direct relation to me. Also knowing college athletes I see the ridiculous amount of time they are asked to dedicate to their sport and then expected to perform well in school, sometimes struggling to find money to pay for meals. I am qualified to write about this topic because I have looked at a variety of credible articles and other sources.  According to an NCAA rulebook for college athletes, these men and women are required to attend 8 hours of study hall during the season and 16 hours during off-season. On top of that they have practices and workouts and the responsibility to attend class. I choose this topic because I believe that it is time for an argument to be made in favor of the athletes and to reveal the reality of the matter. The reality being that college athletes are being exploited by the NCAA and if college athletes were to start receiving pay it would only provide beneficial results. The NCAA seems to have forgotten that their source of income would be completely cut off if there were no college athletes.

If not for the NCAA strict enforcement of the rule prohibiting the payment of college athletes, the athletes would already be receiving pay. Dave Zirin, who is an economist writes about how the NCAA, in an article titled " An Economist Explains Why College Athletes Should Be Paid" on The Nation, is so strictly enforcing the rule stating college athletes can't be paid simply so they wont have to give up any of their money. He believes if this rule didn't exist, than college athletes would most definitely be paid. He proposes a simple solution saying the best way to put this into effect would be to have it be on a conference level. Each specific conference as a whole would decide whether to pay their students or not, and the economists strongly believes that most all conference would decide yes. I think Zirin makes a good point because allowing the decision to be made at a conference level it would be much easier to come to an agreement because it is fewer people providing their input. Also doing it by conference level makes the decision more personal because the conferences know their teams. This article does contain bias towards the athletes, Zirin attacks almost every possible argument an individual could make against paying college athletes and states why that argument is incorrect and would not hold up in court.  Zirin talks about how coaches and athletic directors are being over paid and a majority of that money the coaches are currently receiving should be redistributed to the athletes, the people producing the money. Zirin bashes the athletic directors saying they don't possess the REAL talent the athletes do. Although this article is bias, it also provides answers to the questions of individuals in opposition of paying college athletes. 

In an article titled, "The Case for Paying College Athletes", written by Marc Edelman published on the U.S. News & World Report, Edelman provides another basis for the payment of college athletes. According to this article the college sports industry brings in around $11 billion each year, and the president of the NCAA personally brining home $1.7 billion of that profit. Many accomplished coaches will bring in around $7 million from a good season. The point of all these numerical values is to identify the unfair distribution of this money. The individuals doing all of the work and making all of the money aren't getting any of it. The reasoning behind that is simple, the NCAA doesn't want to give up any of its profits. The NCAA, as well as the coaches and athletic directors, are failing to remember that none of that money would be possible without the athletes. The NCAA has no shortage of money; the organization just doesn't want to have to give up any of "their" profits. While these executives at the NCAA are living large, some college athletes struggle to afford three meals a day and wouldn't have time to get a paying job because they are too busy with school and sports. 

A former athlete published an article on the Huffington Post presenting his arguments as for why college athletes should be paid. The arguments made in this article were in regards to the college athletes practically having a full-time job, but one where they do not get paid. Another point he brings up is regarding the opposition of paying athletes. People argue that college athletes already get paid when they receive a scholarship. However these athletes do not see a single dollar of that scholarship. I am arguing that in addition to scholarships, college athletes deserve to be receiving payment per semester to cover costs of food and other personal necessities because unlike regular college students, athletes do not have the time to work a paying job. 

In arguing this topic, I do not believe that college athletes need to receive as much money as an athlete at the professional level would, I am arguing for compensation where compensation is deserved. Not paying people who work full-time jobs its entirely unfair, and college athletes are practically working a full-time job, therefore it is time they started getting paid. Paying college athletes would be highly beneficial to the athletes because it encourage each athlete to stay at the university as opposed to going pro to make money. That would be huge because paying college athletes would indirectly be encouraging them to finish out their time at their school and graduate with a good education, which is the whole purpose of college. It would also benefit the university because they would get to keep their star players that much longer. Paying college athletes needs to happen because it's unfair not too and rewarding them with payment would encourage them to stay in school and get an education, which would be beneficial to them in their life time. 

 
