The question I have decided to ask for my research paper is: Why should Collegiate student-athletes be paid? I am interested in pursuing this as my question because of my passion for sports as a whole, but more specifically college football. As I became older I started looking into and studying the game as a whole, this included everything from recruiting, to the practices, to the games themselves. As I have become more and more interested into the sport and its surrounding aspects, it becomes impossible to notice the controversy that surrounds this sport. While there are other controversial areas in the sport (Recruiting, corruption, etc) the one I find the most interesting and problematic is the lack of compensation for the athletes. I find this so problematic and against my values because of the incredible amounts of money these schools are making off of the athletes and countering it with a scholarship. As someone who played football all throughout my life I can personally attest to the incredible amounts of hard-work and dedication it takes to rise to this level of play. The fact that schools are willing to profit all of this, while also taking the power away from their students is very troubling and needs to be fixed. 

The first source I found was an article summarizing the beliefs of a Vanderbilt economics professor who believes that college athletes should be paid. He cites that not paying college athletes is unfair because it is a form of wage-fixing that would violate antitrust rules if it were under other circumstances. He also believes that current court cases will eventually change the system and overall benefit the players. The major value portrayed by the author shows that the coaches and schools should not be unfairly benefitting off of the student-athletes. He shows that this is unfair through economic policy established for worker's unions to protect the people doing the hard work, showing he believes the student athletes should be protected. This source is credible because it comes from the analysis of two highly respected professors, one from Vanderbilt and one from Chicago both analyzing the economic principals behind this. They also cite real world examples like court cases and economic policies and show how this relates to the NCAA's treatment of the student-athletes. They also have a very apparent pro-athlete bias but it is presented in a factual way. 

The second source is an article that doesn't call for student athletes being paid directly, but rather calls for the NCAA to stop using the term amateurism as a way to avoid paying players, and therefore profiting directly off of them. They also show how much they are worth compared to how much they are earning. The major interest the author presents here is calling for the end of the use of the term amateurism because of how the NCAA uses that term as "camouflage" to help protect their business model. He also wants to make sure that the reader knows how much these athletes really are worth, and how much they are losing for playing under the NCAA's rules. Ellen J. Staurowsky is a professor at Drexel University in the Sports Management department. She has also co-authored a book called College Athletes for Hire: The Evolution and Legacy of the NCAA Amateur Myth on the subject of Amateurism in the NCAA. She presents her argument with an anti NCAA bias.

The last source I used for my analysis was an article calling for why student-athletes should not be paid. The main claim in this article was not that student-athletes should be paid, but rather better use of the scholarship that is presented to them. He cites misuses of it as hurting the true value of what is being given to the student-athletes. The major value that the author is trying to show off here is the true value of what is being wasted at some schools. It is very apparent that the author is pro-education and thinks that some opportunities here are being squandered when they should not be, believing that this is hurting everyone who is involved in the process. Ekow-n-yankah is a professor at the Cardozo School of Law and has written numerous papers and articles about the value of education. This paper has a strong bias towards the call for reformation towards the educations of student-athletes as well as NCAA policies relating to the economic standing of the students.

My research question is arguable because there are so many possible (and rational) responses to the question of should athletes be paid. Some sources believe they should be paid and some believe they should not, but all of the sources I have read for have called for a change in the NCAA's policy towards these athletes. They all also call for a change in the term amateurism because they believe that the NCAA is misrepresenting this term (with me completely agreeing.) Some of my sources beliefs are parallel to mine, while some are almost completely opposite, but these perspectives will help me acknowledge some of the smaller details that I may need to consider changing. 

