For countless years, paying college athletes to play a sport at their particular college or university has been a highly controversial topic. This issue remains in the hands of the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association); the NCAA is the organization that creates and enforces the rules and regulations on college sports. As the NCAA's rules and regulations stand now, players are not allowed to receive a paycheck for the countless hours they spend working on the field. However, they are allowed to receive money in the form of a scholarship. The scholarship can be small, or it could be huge and pay the tuition for the athlete in full. Other than that, these athletes are prohibited from making any money for themselves whatsoever. The NCAA has the power to and should implement and/or modify certain rules and regulations for college sports, however it should not be able prohibit players from making money in a legal way for themselves.  

A student-athlete at a particular university can be worth a lot of money. At many larger Universities or colleges with good sports teams, a single player for that school's team can generate hundreds of thousands of dollars. In Ryan Vanderford's article, "Pay for Play An Age-Old Struggle For Appropriate Reform In A Changing Landscape Between Employee and Employer," he says, "Meanwhile, a recent study found that a college football player at the University of Texas is worth, on average, $578,000 which is more than fifteen times the amount the University of Texas actually spends on each football player at the school ($37,000)" (Vanderford 805). When each individual's worth exceeds the expenses of what playing that sport for that team costs by over $540,000, don't you think the player should get at least a small portion? However, that is not the case, they just receive a scholarship that is ridiculously lower amount of money and have no choice but to call it even and move on. 

Not only do the players bring in a great amount of money for their schools, they also bring in even more money for the NCAA. College athletics are big business. A statistic from Ryan Vanderford's article states that, "In 2012, the National Collegiate Athletic Association reported $871.6 million in revenue" (Loverro). Student athletes can be worth a great deal of money for their schools, the NCAA and even a couple more parties. A team could sign multiple various endorsement deals with many widely known businesses. Nike and Under Armor are fantastic examples of this; they are both very successful athletic apparel oriented brands. Nike pays the Michigan state head basketball coach, Tom Izzo, $400,000 under a shoe and apparel contract which then provides free clothing, apparel and footwear for the entire team to have free of charge. By seeing how much hard work and time players put into pursuing their sport, and how much money they can generate to their schools and the NCAA, can these athletes be termed as part-time employees? 

The former concept of referring to a player as an "employee" is a big factor holding college athletes from receiving money for their playing of a particular sport. "In spite of this success, the NCAA had encountered a problem. In 1953, a football player at the University of Denver sued the university, claiming the university was obligated to provide workers compensation for his injuries sustained while playing football. The Colorado Supreme Court held that the player was an employee within the meaning of Colorado's workers compensation statute" (Vanderford 808). The NCAA was astonished that they lost the case, but its response to the loss was rapid. In a clear effort to shift the characterization of players away from an employee status, the NCAA coined the term 'student-athlete' (Vanderford 808). The term 'student athlete' is a good term to refer to these players as; they aren't only at college to play a sport, they are also there to get an education. However, is it really fair to revoke these athletes status of an employee altogether? The players spend more hours practicing their particular sport than most people do for their job. It's not even like they are just their practicing lightly either, practicing for any sport is very hard, very long, very draining and very demanding. These players work harder than most people do to earn a living, they work longer than a great portion of people do for to earn a living, and they might even earn more money for their school than people make at their job for themselves. That being said, why can't these athletes at least known as part-time employees? 

Just as the NCAA refuses to call college athletes employees, the NCAA also refuses to call the players anything but amateurs. After many court cases and many reforms, a man named Mark Guarino noted that, "What the reforms would not budge on is the idea that college players are amateur student-athletes" (Guarino). However, is it fair to deem every athlete in college sports an amateur? When people do the same thing for years on years, that doesn't really make them an amateur. It doesn't make them all amateurs especially because of how much money some of them are worth. A man named Ryan Vanderford stated the fact that, "In men's college basketball, potential venues for the Final Four national championship tournament must hold a minimum of 60,000 fans and provide at least 10,000 full-service hotel rooms to even be considered. A team that reaches the Final Four wins glory, respect, and $7.7 million dollars for its conference over the next six years" (Vanderford 805-806). With numbers like that it almost sounds crazy that a minimum of 60,000 fans would be willing to watch a bunch of amateurs play a game. There is also the fact that many college sports individuals are as good as if not better than the professionals of their sport. The NBA and NFL drafts are a fantastic display of that. The first round draft pick in these drafts are always people that are elite in college, that's a given. But as these players get drafted to the NBA or NFL, it is very common for them to be playing at the same or maybe even a better level of play than many of the professionals. It is also quite common to see these first round draft picks to be listed on the starting lineups for their new team their rookie season. With all of that said, do you really think it is fair to say every player in college sports in an "amateur?" 

The concept of paying athletes in college has been a long and hard fought battle between both sides of the argument. With it being such a long lasting controversial topic, many people have had a lot of time to think of theories that could change the rules in a compromise manner, not a rule change in one sides favor. One potential new theory that could be implemented is this, "The semiautonomous model. Some sports management experts say universities could turn their football programs into semiautonomous enterprises that are self-supporting, much like university medical systems. In this model, college athletes would earn professional status as paid employees instead of receiving scholarships. They would attend classes only outside their respective sports seasons. The corruptive elements, such as under-the-table payments for signings, would be eliminated because players would earn competitive wages generated by media and merchandise revenue" (Guarino). This potential model, the athletic departments would no longer be directly supported by the school, yet still part of the school. Many school's athletic departments would be able to support themselves at ease due to the insane amounts of money they bring in by themselves alone. They would even have more than enough left over and could use some of that to play the players. This model would also allow players to sign individual endorsement deals  and other signings to make not only money, but a name for themselves. The best aspect of this new potential model is that it still maintains an education for the student-athletes while paying them for all of their hard work. 

Like any controversial topic, like this one, pay for play, the argument has two sides. In regard for that topic, the two opposing sides are the ones who believe pay for play is the right way or the ones who believe that the rules should not change and pay for play is the wrong way. The author, Matt Hayes, of the article, "Despite NCAA Concessions, Pay For Play Is Wrong Way," gives a good look at some reasons why people may believe pay for play is the wrong way and the rules should not change. In his article, he refers to college football specifically and  claims that "The point is, we've strayed from what college football is all about. It's not a minor league for the NFL, and it's not a place for athletes to make money playing a game. College football is passion and pageantry and everything the NFL is not" (Hayes). To many people, playing college football is most definitely their passion. However, so is playing professional football. Many football players do not see football as just a passion, they may envision it as a way to fulfill their passion while making money doing so whether that happens in college or the NFL (National Football League). Who wouldn't want to have their passion also be their job? 

That's got to be a dream come true for people, doing the thing you love and also getting paid for it. 

Another viewpoint of Hayes is, "Yet there are still those who believe athletes are getting a raw deal. What gets lost is that many elite football players shouldn't even be in college. They're marginal students getting a free chance at an education and using it as a springboard to the NFL. Let them go. Let them jump into the NFL straight out of high school, taking the threat of agents and scandal with them. Is college football really going to die because the elite 1 percent of athletes isn't around?" (Hayes) Hayes seems to believe that these elite athletes that aren't the sharpest tools in the shed should not be in college and that them not playing on these teams will have no effect on college sports. However, both of these viewpoints of his have another side to the argument.  

College is a place to help set you up for success in the future; it doesn't matter if you go strictly for an education, or if you're one of the elite players in a college sport pursuing that particular sport getting an education on the side. Sure, the fact that these elite players are in college is because of their sports skillset. But however they get into college, they are still student-athletes, not just athletes. I have played multiple sports year-round my entire life up until college, I've been on over 20 different teams with many very different coaches. While many of the things they say differ, one thing that every single one of them has told me is that every player on the team is a student before an athlete. No good coach will ever disagree with that statement and why would they? If a coach's players aren't good enough students, they will be ineligible to play for the team and that is the last thing a coach wants.  Being in college can help put these student-athletes on the right track both in the classroom and on the field. Matt Hayes' other claim that college sports will not die if the elite one percent of athletes aren't in college is not a proper viewpoint on the matter either. The better a player is, the more fun it is for the fans to watch them play. The elite one percent of athletes tend to be a big factor in most cases as to why people pay to see many teams play. Without the elite one percent of college athletes, college sports would not be nearly as entertaining for fans to watch, so they might not.

Another major factor refraining college athletes from getting a paycheck is Title IX. Title IX is the ban on sex discrimination at any educational institution that accepts federal funds. Title IX is not something that applies to only sports, it applies to all aspects of any college. However, what Title IX means athletically, is that colleges can't pay male players because they would also have to pay female players, which would be ruinous financially (Pay for Play and Title IX). It also means that scholarship money must be spent equally for male and female athletes, meaning that a college or university has the same amount of scholarship funds to spend on females as they do males (Pay for Play and Title IX). However, should a person's sex be the determining factor in how money is spent or is funding something accordingly in relation to how much money that particular sport makes a better idea?

Being a player has its expenses for the player and the school, but it also serves as quite the expense for the parents and families of the players. College sports teams often have to travel to various parts of the country to play a game or tournament against other teams. The team usually travels on a bus or plane together as a group, however this does not include families of the players. When parents have kids that make it big and are playing in the NCAA for whatever sport, odds are the parents will want to go to the games and watch their kids play. However, it is not that easy; college games are not cheap, and they are at many different places making airfare another expense. The article, "College Football Playoff, NCAA to Pitch in on Parents' Expenses," by Steve Berkowitz,  talks about how much reimbursement parents (strictly only parents, no other kids) with a kid playing in the Final Four of the NCAA Basketball tournament get back for their travel expenses to see their kids play. Only parents with a kid on the top 4 teams in a 64 team tournament receive money for the final two games expenses, which is only 2 out of 5 games in the tournament (Berkowitz). Is it fair that parents might not have the ability to see their beloved child carry out his/her dream of playing a college sport strictly because of economic reasons?

Scholarships are given to athletes in order for them to play a particular sport at a college or university and these scholarships can add up to be a large quantity of money for some athletes. However, a vast majority of college athletes do not receive substantial scholarships, if any at all. Scholarship money is distributed mostly among the sports teams that generate the most money for the school. For example, a football player is much more likely to receive a scholarship than a track runner. However, not all scholarship money can be spent on one sport. No college or university will ever dedicate one-hundred percent of their scholarships to any particular sport, that is unfair and the not as widely-watched sports would be left behind with nothing.

Athletes are allowed to hold a part time job in the off-season, but while their sport is in season they are prohibited from maintaining a job.  Many college students dread having a job during the school year, but the paycheck is worth it to them so get one anyway. However, this is not possible for those who play a sport in college. Initially, the NCAA had forbade all college athletes from maintaining a job during the school year altogether. However, a recent rule change now allows these athletes to get a job in their off seasons during the schoolyear (Lee). While this rule change may be beneficial to many people, it is still holding players back from getting and/or keeping a job year-round. When an athlete gets a summer job, it seems great and all, but that may not be the case. Many employers look for loyal employees that they can hire and count on them being present to work a good amount. But with these athletes and the NCAA's rules, it is seemingly impossible for the athletes to actually do that. If they get a job over the summer, they will most likely only have that job for a short amount of time due to the fact that many athlete's summers are cut short in order for them to be back at their school's practicing for a sport. They will not be able to work a full summer or while their sport is in season. Most Bosses most likely want to employ people who will be present as much as possible, so they will fill the spots with people that can be present much more than part of a summer and the short off season. 

While the NCAA's rule of not allowing student-athletes to maintain a job while their sport is in season effects them economically, it also effects their likelihood of getting a job after college. An author, Brian Lee gives an insight on this topic by saying, "Another advantage of giving college athletes an opportunity to work is that it will give them something to put on a resume. While having a 40-inch vertical leap or 400-pound bench press comes in handy on the court or playing field, it is of little use to potential employers" (Lee). You can't forget the fact that only a small percentage of athletes will have the skillset to make it to the professional leagues, so when their sports career ends after college ends, they will most likely need  a job. A job is much easier to get if you have a good resume, however it is hard to have that when you're not allowed to have a job for over half of the schoolyear. A very good thing to have on any resume when applying for a job is loyalty to a job. This means that a person can get a job and also maintain it for a long period of time. This shows that the person an employer may employ will not quit for whatever reason after a month. That being said, it is nearly impossible for college athletes to have that on their resume when they are so rarely able to work. 

Paying college athletes will not only make the players happy, but it could also serve as an incentive for them to play harder and be better. Money is a big motive for many people, and in professional sports, the better you are, the more you get paid. Another reason pay for play is a good idea is because paying college athletes will give them more of a reason to actually stay in school. These phenomes in college sports are so good nowadays that they don't even need to stay in college long enough to graduate, as soon as they are old enough they have the option to drop out of college in hope of playing their next season with the professionals. The author of the article, "Pay or Don't Play," by Louis Barbash, writes that "The departure of so many high performing players has taken its toll on the NCAA, especially intercollegiate basketball. College basketball this season has been a long snooze. The departure of players who left for the pros after their freshman year left spaces to be filled by lesser players" (Pay or Don't Play).  Paying these athletes will give them a very good reason to play college sports for their full four years, giving them the full college experience. Not only will it make them want to stay at their schools, it will make those phenomes on many teams keep playing all four years of college allowing for a higher level of play in college sports. 

College athletes put in an incredible amount of work in to whatever sport they play, whether they are playing at a huge division one school or if they are playing at a small division three school. They work longer and harder than most people do to earn a living for themselves or to support a family, a good amount of them make more money for their school than people make as their salary, and somehow can't be known as an employee whatsoever. Many of these elite college athletes have a better skillset than the skillset of a large portion of professionals do, yet they are still known as "amateurs." They can even play in games that are watched by over 100,000 viewers that are present at the stadium along with the hundreds of thousands that are watching the game on their television. Taking all of that information into perspective, college athletes rightfully deserve a paycheck for their work. 

