Many argue that the athletes should be compensated because of the millions of dollars of revenue they bring to the NCAA every year.  At first this seemed like a valid point, but after doing further research I have found that paying college athletes will have a negative effect on all parties involved.  College athletes should not be paid a salary because of the negative effects it would have on the purpose of attending college as an athlete, the adversity it would cause in paying athletes fairly, and the fact that athletes already are being well compensated by not having to worry about paying for an education.  

If college athletes were paid it would tarnish the values of the university.  When athletes decide which school they would like to attend they have to decide between factors such as: what school offers the best education, what atmosphere they fit in with more, and several other factors.  If athletes were being paid salaries many would choose whichever school offered the largest salary, and the university's values would be undermined.  Ekow N. Yankah discusses this when he says, "If a high-school football prodigy reported that he chose Michigan not for its academic quality, tradition, or beautiful campus but because it outbid all other suitors, a connection to the university's values would be lost"(Yankah).  College is a time in life meant to not only learn in the classroom, but also learn about yourself while developing relationships that can last a life-time.  I chose to attend the University of South Carolina because I felt at home here after touring the school, and pictured myself maturing as a person here better than anywhere else.  If potential recruits base their decision largely on money there is a high risk that they will lose the experiences outside of their sport that are necessary in developing into a successful person.  

Student-athletes are already compensated well by the NCAA.  According to McCauley, "College athletes don't have to worry about student loans, paying for textbooks, the cost of on-campus living, and meal plans"(McCauley).  Many college athletes come from poor backgrounds, and would not have the opportunity for an education if it were not for the NCAA.  With college prices continuously rising, a free education is something becoming even more valuable.  Many college students graduate with student debt that they have to worry about for years to come.  More than 99% of college athletes do not play professional sports, so getting a degree for free is something that promotes a promising future. As stated by Kurtzleben, "Among millennials ages 25 to 32, median annual earnings for full-time working college-degree holders are $17,500 greater than for those with high school diplomas only" (Kurtzleben)  That is visible evidence of the value of a college education in today's age.

  I would like to see the addition of better health care for not only current players, but also athletes that may face health issues down the road do to their time playing at their given University.  It seems like the NCAA is headed in this direction of better compensating players, while not just handing them a check.  The NCAA has always required that schools provide meal plans for their players, but it was not until April of 2014 that college players were granted the right to free food all around. There was a big issue when Connecticut's star player, Shabazz Napier, claimed to have trouble providing meals for himself at times. He said this when asked how the NCAA could improve in an interview after the National Championship, and it was heard all throughout the world.   Napier said, "We as student athletes get utilized for what we do so well. We are definitely best to get a scholarship to our universities, but at the end of the day, that doesn't cover everything. We do have hungry nights that we don't have enough money to get food and sometimes money is needed.  I think, you know, Northwestern has an idea, and we'll see where it goes"(Waldron).  On paper the NCAA required that players be provided meal plans, which they were,but the hectic schedule of being a student-athlete would lead to nights when meals were not available.  "The NCAA's legislative council approved a resolution, on April 13, 2014, that would allow schools to provide unlimited meals and snacks to college athletes"(Waldron).  NCAA athletes were already provided with meal plans and stipends, but Napier helped push the NCAA to the point where they created an environment in which kids can not go hungry.  Although this was just two years ago, it shows that the NCAA is continuing to make changes to better compensate their athletes on top of scholarships.  Schools are willing to enhance a player's mind if he is willing to enhance their student body and school spirit. If it weren't for scholarships and college sports, many players of low-income players would be paid jail sentences, instead of an opportunity to build a great life. 

 A recent case at Northwestern University in 2014 suggested that students may indeed legally be employees.  A ruling was made by the regional director of the National Labor Relations Board in Chicago that explained that football players at Northwestern were employees of the private school and therefore had the right to unionize.  Northwestern would later appeal the ruling, but this was one of the first times when players were seriously considered for compensation.  The NCAA commented, "We strongly disagree with the notion that student-athletes are employees"(Pazzanese).  The NCAA may be seen to be at risk for lawsuits such as the Northwestern case, but what they do have on their side is the fact that almost all Universities and coaches are on their side of not paying athletes.  One year later the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the antitrust suit against the NCAA that had effects on both parties.  The ruling said that the NCAA is not immune to antitrust regulation, but also reversed a lower court ruling that was going to compensate former athletes nearly five thousand dollars a year in deferred compensation.  

As of now the NCAA has not been found legally liable to compensate college athletes because of the risk involved with doing this.  A likely outcome of paying college athletes is the high risk that it will erode the precious balance of athletes and their education.  A relevant situation related to this is stated by Yankah when he says, "Auburn fans still bristle at accusations that Cam Newton auctioned them his services; prideful Michigan fans still smart over the sanctions surrounding Chris Webber, and over stinging comments intimating that he might just as well have attended a rival school. These episodes reveal what happens when college sports are reduced to a market; that this occurs all too often already is no reason to surrender to it" (Yankah).  What Yankah is explaining here is what is likely to happen when adding such a complicated component to the process of being a student athlete.  The process will evolve to the point where money is the main factor, and school will be less of a focus for the athletes.  

 "The law plays a critical role here, and the Ninth Circuit's ruling can be a constructive step. It recognizes that the N.C.A.A. is subject to antitrust regulation -- unlike, say Major League Baseball, and refuses to put a monetary value on college sports. In the future, Congress could, through antitrust and commerce legislation, promote a more just landscape in college and professional sports. Professional leagues, in particular, could be encouraged to invest more seriously in their minor-league programs -- the N.B.A. Development League is at least the right idea -- and drop the relevant age restrictions. This would mean that the extraordinary few could go pro out of high school, and some other high fliers, could enter the developmental leagues, paid whatever the market will bear" (Yankah).  Yankah is providing a method to compensate the very few athletes that have the ability to go professional, while also keeping the student-athlete balance in tact. 

 When a parent has a son or daughter that gets a college scholarship they naturally believe that their child is the next Michael Jordan of their sport, but in reality most will not play professionally.  "On average, only 1.6% of college football players and 1.2% of men's basketball players will make it professionally"(Oliver). This scenario that Yankah drew out may lead to less superstars playing a few years of college sports, but every movement like this has some drawbacks.  The pros of this would be that the fundamental purpose behind scholarship athletes be preserved.  We are moving towards an era where athletes are being brainwashed to believe that their sport is their entire life.  Sure playing in the NFL would be an experience of a lifetime, but the average career of an NFL player is 3.3 years.  Also, 78% of NFL players are either bankrupt or commit suicide within two years of retirement.  With kids being trained harder than ever, and the possibility that their will be compensation to whomever can get a college scholarship, the need for a more traditional college education seems more important now more than ever.  If change does not occur soon it seems as if we will see continue to see the sports aspect of a college athlete's life get the majority of attention.

As the price of a college education continues to skyrocket, the luxury of not having to pay for this burden is very valuable. Many college athletes come from lower-income households, so the opportunity to gain an education is something many athletes would not have if it were not for their scholarships. Kieran McCauley supports this when he says, "The average debt is $32,528. That is an enormous burden for kids who may, or may not have a job awaiting them upon graduation." (McCauley)  McCauley also shows other tangible benefits of being a scholarship athlete when he says, "College athletes don't have to worry about student loans, paying for textbooks, the cost of on-campus living, and meal plans"(McCauley)   In John Oliver's episode discussing the payment of college athletes he uses a video of a University of Connecticut player talking about going to bed hungry at times.  This video does not in any way describe how athletes live today, and John Oliver even starts to admit this when he says, "The NCAA has slightly softened their rules on food the past couple years"(Oliver).  Those who feel as if college athletes should be paid on top of these benefits do not understand the intangible benefits that a college education gives the athletes.  Ekow Yankah had a very similar stance when he said, "It is, rather, another manifestation of that corrosive American belief that anything that has value must also have a price"(Yankah).  People should refrain from being so centered in on statistics, and start to notice the path that the NCAA provides by allowing these athletes to attend some of the best universities in the world.  

One of the largest problems of paying college athletes is the question of how much to pay each player.  Does the star quarterback of a football team get paid the same as the third string punter?  Kieran McCauley makes a similar point when he says, "No offense to the athlete who plays a sport that doesn't air on national television but it doesn't seem acceptable that they get paid the same amount as the college football player competing in the National Championship with 33 million people watching them"(McCauley).  Most athletes have the similar schedules in a normal week when it comes to how much work they are putting into his or her sport.  Another gray area that would arise is who deserves to be paid.  Do Division II, Division III, or female college athletes get compensated as well as the Division I men who help bring in billions in revenue?  Sure Division I men are more popular, but the other college athletes put just as much time into his or her sport. 

We live in fast evolving world where it seems like the grass is always greener on the other side.  In many situations this is the case, but college athletics are in a great place right now.  The payment of college athletes would cause more problems than solutions, so it seems as if holding back from this drastic change will be for the good of the sport.  I'm not saying that the NCAA's relationship with student-athletes is currently perfect, but there is some potential progress to be made that does not involve paying the players a salary. 

integrate? "Perhaps the largest gap, and the area that has the most media attention at the moment, is the issue of long-term care. An athlete may require medical care for sport-related injuries years or even decades after his or her college career is over"(Sheely).  The area of long-term health care is where the NCAA needs to put their focus for the future.  With concussions and CTE's becoming much more researched the long term effects of playing a college sport seem to be potentially life altering.  Many critics argue that the NCAA needs to support college athletes because of the billion-dollar industry the NCAA has become.  

Providing long-term health care for athletes would be a great compromise between both parties because it is supporting college athletes down the road, while also not compensating them by a check.  The majority of college athletes will not have the privilege of making millions professionally, so many may have trouble affording appropriate health care down the road.  If this is taken care of by the NCAA it would be a priceless gift to the athletes who may unfortunately have serious health problems down the road.  If the NCAA continues to move on this subject they may be able to quiet some of their critics, while also taking care of the athletes who help make them a billion dollar industry.  This seems like a solution in which all parties will win, while also preserving the delicate balance of being a student-athlete.     

Zachary: So a few things that I immediately noticed. You are supposed to cite 10 sources throughout your paper. It's quite easy to tell that you didn't because a lot of what you say needs some source to back it up--if you can't back it up, you need to rewrite it or delete it. You don't use John Oliver at all in here and he's the best counterargument available and addresses many of the points that you make here in a way that means you HAVE TO engage him. You rely really heavily on the Ekow Yankah source which isn't so great because his article rests on a lot of assumptions that he does NOT explain. You should make sure to vary up the sources you engage with because relying too heavily on one can really hurt you. I've suggested changes throughout but to sum up: engage John Oliver and vary the use of sources that support you! B-

