For over one hundred years, Americans have followed college athletics with a feverish, deep-rooted passion. Large universities have tens of thousands of loyal alumni, and a plethora of statewide and regional followers. Alumni take pride in their universities because it is where they earned a degree, and perhaps made friends, business connections, and found a spouse. By coming back to their college campus for game day, alumni can recall their 'good 'ole days of partying and studying on the beautiful campus of their state or private university. By supporting their sports teams, they embody the memories, culture, and connections from their past.

Statewide and regional followers can draw similar memories from drawing pride in a school. Perhaps they cheered for the 'hometown' or 'home state' team as a child, and their dad used to take them to games. On Sundays, maybe they read about the result of the game in the local newspaper. The next weekend, they look forward to visiting the stadium again. On top of these two groups, many others watch college sports for entertainment value or other reasons. Maybe a certain player or team is exciting to watch, or a game has an impact on who will win the league championship or playoffs. College sports are exciting, fun, and inclusive, drawing a general and large audience in America.

Since college sports are so popular in America, schools are making a lot of money off of their athletes. For example, schools make money from media rights. Fans who can't make it to the stadium can often access games through television, radio, or internet. The NCAA's Southeastern Conference television rights deal is valued at 2.25 billion for 15 years with ESPN/ABC and $825 million 15-year deal with CBS College Sports (Katz, Vaughn, Gilleran, "Should College Athletes Be Payed: A Discussion Forum."). If that's not enough, schools pocket ticket and merchandise sales, along with other revenue streams such as parking and concessions. Schools aren't the only ones making money off of college athletes. 

The college itself doesn't only benefit off of game days, but so does the college's town, county, and state, especially during football season. "Football-game days in particular drive college-town economics"  ...  "according to a 2012 study from Oxford Economics, a global research firm, a season's worth of Texas A&M home football games generates $86 million in business for Brazos County, where A&M is located". (Gregory, "Should This Kid Be Making $225,047 A Year Playing College Football?"). Big-time college sports events are not only a financial windfall for universities, but also are extremely valuable to local and state businesses, therefore making it beneficial for the American economy as a whole. This isn't just recent news either: college athletics has been beneficial for the economy since long ago. For example, a 1929 study from the Carnegie Foundation revealed that "the scramble for players had 'reached the proportions of nationwide commerce.'" (Branch, The Shame of College Sports)

The NCAA is highly profitable, as the organization "pulled in $989 million in its 2014 fiscal year, according to an audited financial statement cited by USA Today" (Strachan, "The NCAA Just Misses $1 Billion in Annual Revenue"). With these kinds of numbers, schools are making a lot of money. But who does the money go to inside of these schools? Certainly not the players. 

The NCAA deceives the public with confusing language to portray college athletes as non-professionals, despite the fact that they produce hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Even though some college athletes use the system as a defacto minor league in hopes of becoming professional, they still must be enrolled in school. To play. Therefore, the NCAA shields itself from compensating the players and giving them basic rights. Terms 'student-athlete' and 'amateur' are used in the writing of the organizations' rules.

Historical evidence suggests that that 'amateur' and 'student-athlete' were myths created to deceive the public and shield the NCAA. For example, "amateurism was born in 19th-century England to keep sport the province of the upper class and imported whole to the Ivy League." (Lloyd, "Review: 'Schooled' a lopsided view of college sports' price"). On the other hand, the term student-athlete was created in the 1950's in an attempt to protect the NCAA against having to pay workers' compensation for its players. For example, the widow of Fort Lewis A&M football player filed a lawsuit for workers' compensation death benefits. It was this ruling were the student-athlete term was created, where college players were not merely students enjoying an extracurricular activity, but were not professionals either. (Branch, "The Shame of College Sports.") Even former NCAA president Walter Byers admitted "we crafted the student-athlete ...  and it was soon embedded in all NCAA rules and interpretations. ("Branch, The Shame of College Sports") Additionally, "Byers predicted that the amateur code, 'held in place for sheer economic purposes, will not long stand the test of the law."

College athletes should be compensated and given other legal benefits because the current value of the scholarship does not cover the full cost of attending school along with the fact that athletes are not fairly rewarded for time commitment, injury risk, or the use of their image and likeness in television appearances. Additionally, compensation and other benefits would encourage athletes to complete a four-year degree in school. 

College athletes should be compensated beyond the value of the full scholarship because the current deal does not cover the full cost of attending school. For example, "the average scholarship shortfall- the student's out-of-pocket expenses- for each 'full scholarship' athlete was approximately $3,222 per player during the 2010-11 school year. Additionally, 85% of players living on campus and 86% of players living off campus lived below the federal poverty line. ("NCAA Rules That Trap Many College Athletes in Poverty") This divide can be a burden on the athlete who often needs to eat more than the average person because they burn so many calories playing a high level sport. Prominent athletes have spoken out against the NCAA for this shortfall. For example, former Tennessee running back Arian Foster explains the effect of returning from a game to his dorm room. "We had just won and I had a good game."  ...  "You go outside and there's hundreds of kids waiting for you. You're signing autographs, taking pictures, whatever.  Then, I walk back, and reality sets in. I go to my dorm room, open my fridge, and there's nothing in my fridge." ("Schooled, the Price of College Sports"). While players can't afford basic necessities such as food, laundry money, and gas money. The coaches and the athletic directors reap all of the rewards produced by the players. In 2015, seventy one head college football coaches made one million dollars are more ("NCAA Salaries"). Instead of withholding athletes from basic necessities, the NCAA and member institutions should reward their athletes with compensation and other legal benefits such as worker's compensation. Perhaps student-athletes wouldn't accept as many illegal benefits if the rules were loosened. However, the rules of amateurism prevent almost any athlete from taking a penny from the nearly billion-dollar a year corporation. The NCAA lists that amateurism prevents student-athletes from "signing contracts with professional teams, a salary for participating in athletics, prize money above actual and necessary expenses, play with professionals, tryouts, practice or competition with a professional team, benefits from an agent or prospective agent, agreement to be represented by an agent, and delayed initial full-time collegiate enrollment to participate in organized sports competition." ("Amateurism") 

If college athletes can't profit from playing sports then acquiring outside employment would be ideal. However, this employment is often challenging to maintain because so many hours are required a week from a dual commitment to athletics and academics. Student-athletes should be compensated because the time commitment put into playing a sport is often equivalent to a full work week. The 2008 USA Today study reflects both required and voluntary hours. Findings reveal that football players spend an average of 44.8 hours a week on their sport, while baseball and men's basketball spend 40 and 36.8 a week on athletics (Wieberg: "Study: College Athletes are full time workers"). Figures find that student-athletes are not only spending the typical American work week on this extracurricular activity but are also spending more time on this than their academic studies. For example, football players spent a little less than 40 hours in the classroom, while men's baseball and basketball spent 32 and 33.9 hours on studies. (Wieberg, "Study: College Athletes are full time workers"). If athletes are spending more time playing on fields and courts rather than studying in the classroom, then the NCAA should consider whether the college athlete is a student or employee.

College athletes should be provided medical coverage and worker's compensation rights because they are subject to health and safety risks both in practice and in games. Texas Christian football player Kent Waldrep was involved in a violent head collision in a 1974 football game against the University of Alabama and was not protected by his school or their insurance agency, leaving Waldrep reliable for all bills. Because of this, Waldrep sued TCU and its insurance agency Texas Employers Insurance, arguing that he was hired to the university to play football and that should be provided worker's compensation for his injury. However, the court ruled that since Waldrep was a 'student-athlete' he would not be eligible for payment (Berkow, "Sports of the Times; Amateurism: The Myth is Upheld"). In an attempt to profit even more greatly off of athletes, colleges utilize players like rented mules. The institution doesn't have to cover an injured player because they are neither fully student or an athlete. After an injury, the school can move on to recruit other top players because college sports is often the only route to full professionalization in America. Instead of this barbaric cartel-like practice, colleges should be recognized as legitimate, money-making corporations. That way, student-athletes can receive proper care funded by the institution. "Minor league baseball players are protected, and a college football player is in essence a minor league football player,''  ...  ''College is his training ground for a potential pro career," according to workers' compensation lawyer Donald Loria (qtd. in Berkow, "Sports of the Times; Amateurism: The Myth is Upheld"). Colleges should pay worker's compensation, not only because all other major sports entities follow the rules but also because its' the right thing to do.

Colleges should compensate their athletes for the use of their image and likeness in licensed NCAA media properties whether that be through television broadcasts, radio broadcasts, or video games. College student-athletes are in debt and uninsured while working long weekly hours and participating in school. This happens as the athletes are seen and heard about by large audiences, whether that be from television broadcast, radio broadcast, or another form. For example, former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon sued the NCAA for using his image in television and video game appearances without his consent. His legal team has contended that players must sign forms to for their image and likeness. Thus, the players should get a piece of the billions of dollars being earned. In the court case. (Strauss, "Catching up with the O'Bannon ruling, soon to go in effect"). Nevertheless, the court ruled that "offering student-athletes cash sums untethered to educational expenses" would make NCAA sports a minor league, rather than an educational venture (McCann, "what the Appeals Court Ruling Means for O'Bannon's ongoing lawsuit"). While player payouts are certainly a step beyond player payment, college athletics aren't necessarily an educational venture. For example, many college athletes come to school uninterested and unprepared for studying. Not only that, but "for those athletes who do wish to participate in the life of the mind," the commitment required from athletics forces the athlete to commit full attention to their sport (Jensen, 38). On top of the fact that athletics often undermines the educational mission of the university, other students can receive payment from the university from simpler and less time-demanding jobs in an academic department, such as becoming a newspaper editor or working as a research intern in the geography department, despite the fact that that department probably won't be making nearly what a college athletics program earn yearly. 

Some people say that college athletes shouldn't be payed. One reason that college athletes shouldn't be payed is because that an education is a form of payment. For example, "a full scholarship over four years can range between $30,000 and $200,000 depending if the institution is public or private." (Johnson/Acquaviva, "Point/counterpoint: Paying College Athletes) While this may be true, athletes aren't receiving the full cost of attendance, as the 'full scholarship' averaged $3,222 short of covering the full cost of attending school. This happens as the NCAA makes nearly a billion dollars in revenue, but doesn't funnel a penny back into the athletes' pocket. Additionally, the educational value of an athlete is usually lower than that of a full-time college student. Student-athletes have lower admission standards and are often less-prepared for college. Not only that, but many athletes spend more time playing their sport than studying, as previously demonstrated.

Another reason that college athletes should not be payed is because there would be no fair way to pay all of the players and there would not be enough funds available to provide a solution. For example, Title IX ruling requires that all men's and women's sports be equally funded by the university. To pay athletes, a solution would need to be made available to pay all athletes fairly. Additionally, some reports depict the college athletics as unprofitable, which leads many to believe that a payment plan for college athletes would be nearly impossible to devise. The study was conducted on 128 football-playing universities in the NCAA's top division, finding that only 20 schools profit from athletics. These 20 schools average a net of $8.45 million, while others lost between $2.3 million and $17.5 million. (Herndon, "NCAA Study Finds All but 20 FBS Schools Lose Money on Athletics.") While this may be true, many of the college in this study were members of power conferences, which have valuable television contracts. Additionally, the NCAA made $989 million as an organization in 2014 (Strachan, "The NCAA Misses Just $1 Billion in Annual Revenue") and a percentage of the funds could be reallocated to athletes.

College athletes have been exploited for over a hundred years in a system similar to slavery. Not only are the athletes denied compensation for the hours of work that they put in on practice and game days, but also they are denied legal protections like workers' compensation, insurance, and their right to their own likeness and image. The NCAA is a corrupt and powerful organization who put the terms of 'student athlete' and 'amateur' in play long ago. After putting these terms into place, the NCAA and colleges used them as leverage against the athlete in court cases and to deceive the public, portraying athletics as a hobby that is coupled with earning a higher education. This is not the fact, however, since athletes often spend more hours on their sport than they spend in the classroom. The amount of risk the 'student-athlete' assumes while stepping onto the field or court of play coupled with the financial windfall that the NCAA has seen should be justification for changes in the system. Maybe big-time college athletes shouldn't be making full blown salaries, but they should at least be making enough money to live over the poverty line and access basic necessities that other college students have.

