On August 8, 2014, the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision that amateurism in the NCAA violates antitrust laws, but decided to deny an injunction that would require institutions to compensate college athletes with cash.  This decision did not put an end to the debate; instead it opened the door to further discussion and arguments as to if and how student athletes should be compensated.  It seems like a very cut and dry debate; they either get paid cash for their participation or they do not.  This is a hot topic of debate because most people would agree that the NCAA is making too much money while athletes are being used, while others argue that it would be unfair and unethical to pay student athletes.  But this is much more complicated than what lies on the surface.  Once one begins to dig around the dispute and take it apart piece-by-piece, unseen problems arise.  With the new court ruling that the NCAA is in fact in violation of antitrust laws, the future of compensating college athletes will be quite different than it is today.  It is disgusting to think about the millions of dollars in revenue each year acquired by the NCAA walking all over their student athletes.  The future of compensating college athletes is changing.  The monopoly created through the business of college athletics by the NCAA violates antitrust laws and athletes' own personal rights as well.  A system for compensation that promotes academic success before sports and ensures the protection of the rights and privacy of athletes must be put into place.

Over the last several years, college sports, more specifically football and basketball have become major sources of entertainment all across the nation.  All of this attracts big bucks for those who own it all, the NCAA. The debate usually sparks up during the transition from the end of basketball season with March Madness and the beginning of football season.  Why not golf or swimming or baseball?  It all boils down to money.  Compensation for college athletes has many grey areas that relate at one's ethical stance on certain issues. Most people look directly at football and basketball but is that necessarily fair?  It is true that those two sports tend to generate the most amount of money but does that make it fair to pay a quarterback more than a goalie on the soccer team simply because they are "worth more".  In the article "College Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid", Kieran McCauley puts the ambiguity in the importance of all sports into question.  An athlete playing a "non-revenue producing sport" may work just as hard, so should they not be treated as equal.

Not only is it unfair to pay certain athletes a certain amount, gender also comes into the mix of things.  "The NCAA reported 28.3 million viewers for the 2015 NCAA Mens' D1 National championship as well as 3.1 million viewers for the Women's D1 National Championship the very same year" (McCauley).  Paying male and female athletes different salaries falls into Title IX implications.  Title IX states that sex discrimination is in no way allowed to deny someone from participating in or benefitting from any educational activity that receives Federal financial assistance.  With this in mind, it becomes evident that college athletes should not and will not receive compensation based on the popularity or importance of their respective sport.  

It is also important to think about the ethical issues of compensating student athletes when compared to the average student.  Most, if not all college athletes received some kind of athletic scholarship that could range up to eighty thousand dollars a year times four years already.  The NCAA-sanctions on athletes receiving benefits are very strict, but schools find ways to twist the rules.  A sports article on the perks of playing for a major school illustrates just how advantageous it can be.  The NCAA gives players "gift bags" before major appearances which include gift cards, clothes, shoes, and sometimes iPads or Beats headphones, which if anyone else were to give them would be illegal.  Athlete's facilities are usually outrageous.  They have it all from their luxurious housing to their private chefs (Brobible).  Student athletes have access to immediate urgent care for free, yet do not receive healthcare through the university.  This is something that needs to improve.  If athletes are laying their bodies down for their university, then they should have better healthcare coverage.

Another advantage that college athletes have is access to atypical classes.  They already have personal tutors provided through the school who do a large portion of their "work".  Some college athletes have the opportunity of taking classes called "Trees and Shrubs" or "Leisure" (Brobible).  Just a few years ago UNC Chapel Hill was put in the spotlight after an allegation of "fraud" courses that lasted for over eighteen years. While it is ignorant to say that all college athletes focus solely on sports, but that stereotype does exist for a reason.  The fact that some athletes come into a university and graduate with a degree after doing hardly any work at all is not only unfair, but also demeaning.  What about the other students who worked hard financially, economically or both to get their diploma?  Athletes and regular students alike both contribute efforts to their universities, the only differences are the categories and revenue generated by each one. Horrace Mitchell questions why this is even a topic of debate in the first place by taking on an almost aggregated.  At the same time Krikor Meshefjian disputes that no athlete should have to drop out of college of be forced into the pros because of high tuition cost and student loans.  If the NCAA is capable of bringing in the amount of money that they do surely they could spare some extra money to extend scholarships for players (Krikor).  Many colleges are known specifically for their athlete achievements, attracting like-minded individuals that could potentially create a gap between schools and divisions.  The system that is in place today could make stronger conferences such as the SEC or the ACC much more desirable as opposed to the Big 10 for example.  

With these ethical concerns in mind, it is easy to overlook the disgraceful monopoly that the NCAA has over its sports and athletes alike.  USA Today reported that the NCAA's revenue in 2014 was nine hundred and eighty-nine million dollars (McCauley).  The Ed O'Bannon case exposed the NCAA for violating the Sherman Antitrust act, yet denied players a sum of five thousand dollars a year on top of the athletic scholarships that they already receive (Mark Schlabach).  O'Bannon's main argument was that the NCAA was violating athletes' rights by using the names', images' and likenesses' of past and present players.  They justified their side by debating that scholarships are valid and equal compensation for the profits that they receive due to their participation.  The NCAA was found to have violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in three ways.  They were first accused with price fixing for particular telecasts.  They developed contracts that attempted to boycott other impending broadcasters.  Lastly, they were charged with placing a limit on production of televised college football (Butifulblonde250). 

The NCAA has multiple sources of "employees".  There are coaches and coaching staff, officials, trainers, and players.  All of these positions receive an income with the exception of players.  Coaches are paid a ludicrous amount of money in most Division 1 cases.  Skip Bayless applauds students that may be taking money under the table because he believes that the star players of these football and basketball teams should be paid four or five times more than their coaches (Bayless).  Obviously this is an exaggerated amount, but his point to the value they bring to the university is huge and definitely something to consider.  According to Marc Edelman, forty out of the fifty highest paid public employees are college football coaches.  In contrast to that, eighty-five percent of college athletes who receive scholarships live below the poverty line.  Why does an organization that brings in such large sums of money not want to use some of that money to keep students, especially athletes in college?  The definition of a cartel is an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition.  Sound oddly familiar?  The NCAA sets prices to maximize profits and basically has no competition.  The National Collegiate Athletic Association states "the NCAA is a non-profit entity that acts as a regulator of amateur athletics and works closely with its member universities to promote excellence in athletics as well as academics" (Butifulblonde250).  The first thing that jumps out of that quote is that they have the guts to say that they are a non-profit entity with the absurd amount of change that they bring into their pockets each year.  The second is a more subtle detail, but most would not argue that the word "student" in student athlete comes first for a reason; therefore, it would seem that the NCAA's first main goal is to promote athletics, which is about the most selfish thing that they could say about that amateur participants.  In high school, the spirit of sports is more for the love of the game.  Obviously most, if not all high schools could do a better job of preaching this to athletes, but this train of thought seems lost when all this money starts to become involved.  This thought should kick start in high schools, and a model should be in place that promotes education before athletics.  

As mentioned earlier the Ed O'Bannon case sparked the debate over fair compensation for student athletes and also exposed the NCAA on multiple accounts of violating to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.  So if most can agree that there must and will be some process of compensation for student athletes.  But how exactly should they be compensated?  Economist Wen Huang offers a hypothesis from a study done that future compensation for student athletes will be dealt with through the labor market (Huang).  This means that players are now actual "employees and could unionize to set conditions, handle endorsements, and finalize all economic contracts. This was actually done in the in Chicago at Northwestern University.  In Christina Pazzanese's article, "Paychecks for College Athlete?" details the first possibility of a labor union in sports, which could hit the NCAA's wallet hard if more schools decide to hop on board.  The problem that this could potentially cause is a quick and evident split between schools that can afford to spend money on academics and ones that do not.  The poor would get worse and the rich would get better.  This would most likely eliminate the use of the term "amateurism" completely in college sports.  College sports would become much more competitive and may seem more "professionalize" so to speak.  

We have already explored the idea of paying athletes a fixed salary and the courts shut down that route.  Plus it came with many grey areas as to who would be paid what as well as Title IX implications.  The best plan of attack is to offer compensation that gives the student athlete incentive to stay in college and fulfill a degree in some field.  In an interview with President Obama before the start of March Madness, he claims that student athletes must be taken better care of academically and medically (Jamieson).  Whether they plan to play at the professional level or not is up to them.  

Extended financial aid through the use of scholarships is the fairest obvious solution to the question of further compensation for players at the collegiate level.  A scholarship that is promised to a player must stick no matter in they get injured or get cut.  As part of this plan, all universities affiliated with the NCAA set a universal grade point average that needs to be met in order to participate.  Schools need to put their focus back into academics rather than athletics so instead of trying to fix a broken team by hiring a multi-million dollar head coach, maybe the money could be used elsewhere such as new lab equipment for the chemistry department.  The main point is, college is a place to receive and education and to use that degree to get a job in the real world.  In an athlete's perfect world, they could all go professional and be paid to entertain thousands of fans, but in reality that is not the case at all.  A very small percentage of athletes are fortunate enough to make it into the pros, so the value of a degree is much more significant than a position on the field and a broken record.  Change needs to be made now because the process will be a slow and painful task full of court rulings and paper work.  The NCAA does not deserve to make a killing of their student athletes while they have to worry about dropping out of school.  You cannot put a price on education, it is worth the time and effort that is put in to get that degree and walk across that stage on graduation day.

The day for compensating college athletes is near.  It is unfair to go about paying them lump sums of money so other steps must be taken to ensure the rights and privacy of student athletes.  The NCAA is violating players by using their name, image and likeness through the use of advertising and apparel sales.  They have also been found to infringe upon the anti-trust acts.  Obama agrees that the only solution to the problem is to look out for the players.  Any and all scholarships must stick regardless of the situation that plays out. Medical coverage must be extended to every player at no cost to them or their families.  Lastly, but most importantly, universities must do a better job of stressing the word "student" in student athlete.  College is the plac to earn and education and nothing can match the value of a degree.

