Imagine this: It's the year 2030 and you decide to bring your five-year-old son son to a basketball game at your alma mater, the University of South Carolina. You have not been back in Columbia to USC in years and you are so excited to show your son the most prideful parts of your school. Walking into the Colonial Life Arena floods your head with memories of basketball games and countless USC sporting events that you attended back in the day. It is the athlete recognition game where all the sports come out during halftime and you are so excited to show your son all of the different sports and student athletes.  When the first half ends, you are surprised to see that only the Football team, baseball team, and men's and women's basketball teams step onto the court to wave to the Gamecock crowd. You are considerably confused as to why only three sports are being represented on the court so you turn to the couple sitting next to you to ask, "Excuse me sir, will all of the other teams be coming onto the court as well? My son was so excited to see the tennis team." The man makes a confused face and states, "Sir, USC pays their athletes now after NCAA amended their rules. They had to cut all of the non-revenue producing sports to cover the athlete's compensations." 

As surreal as this scenario sounds, this could potentially be the future for college athletics.  The issue of whether or not to pay collegiate athletes, commonly known as the Pay-for-Play issue, has been a highly talked about topic within the past few years.  It is an issue every sports fanatic has certainly heard of and most likely has an opinion on. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, commonly referred to as the NCAA, has been the leading organization that controls all things athletics in the college world.  A common goal of the NCAA is to maintain the amateur status of collegiate athletes and prevent any type of compensation or unnecessary special treatment towards athletes, including receiving money for signing autographs or giving them extra money to buy food.  Recently, the NCAA has been criticized for making millions off of teams and athletes, when in return the athletes themselves make nothing.  The NCAA brings in upwards of $1 billion a year off of marketing and making deals with TV companies for air time. This has caused controversy and brought up the question of whether the athletes themselves should receive compensation if they are generating enormous amounts of money for the NCAA and their Universities. In August 2014, in the O'Bannon vs. NCAA lawsuit, the NCAA was found guilty of violating anti-trust laws by denying athletes further pay on top of their athletic scholarships. Since then, the NCAA has granted universities the right to choose whether or not they want to give athletes additional money. In reality, these "additional costs" are essentially considered compensation for the athletes. Universities should choose not to pay their athletes because it would corrupt college athletics and bring about various problems. Specifically, the University of South Carolina should not decide to compensate their athletes because it is unethical, will change the dynamic of our school, and create widespread problems in our school and athletic community. 

One of the most prominent reasons why collegiate athletes should not be paid is because they are already being compensated with their scholarships.  The value of an education is higher than any monetary measures. Athletes who are on full scholarships are essentially being paid by way of their universities to attend and represent the school through athletics.  On average most public universities cost around $20,000 including room and board for in-state students and $35,000 for out-of-state students. Because of the extremely costly prices of college, some regular students either drown in mounds of student loans to pay for college or they do not go at all.  Meanwhile student-athletes have the benefit of going to college for free or at a very reduced price. Is being given a college education for free really not enough for them? Supporters of this plan to pay athletes complain that the NCAA takes advantage of the athletes by broadcasting and marketing big-name sports like football and basketball to create revenue. One supporter states that "the NCAA has successfully hidden behind the term student-athlete and the amateurism principle, obscuring the reality of the university-athlete employment relationship ... to avoid universities' legal responsibilities as employers. The following fifty-plus years have seen the profits of the NCAA and its member institutions skyrocket, resulting in part from a vigorous defense and preservation of this myth" (Vanderford).  What this author fails to realize is there is a reason that collegiate athletes are named student-athletes and not athlete-students.  They do not come to college just to play sports, they come for the education first and foremost.  The sports aspect of it is just a benefit to helping the student pay for school and create a memorable experience representing their school that could affect their future if they decide to continue their athletic career. The students are in no way or form a "employee" to the university they attend.  Collegiate athletes are well aware going into college that their sporting events, depending on the sport, will most likely be televised or viewed by fans, that's what makes college sporting events so exciting.  By knowing this, they are also aware that the school and NCAA will make money off of those events or merchandise.  This is no way makes it a priority for athletes to be compensated for their athletic abilities.  They are not being manipulated, they are receiving the opportunity of a lifetime to attend college for free. As perfectly worded by news writer Kiernan McCauley, "I wouldn't label earning a free college education exploitation." 

Another prominent concern with deciding to pay student athletes is the question of "how?" Is it really possible for the University of South Carolina to enact on this plan to pay athletes? Some athletic departments at big-name universities bring in upwards of over $100 million each year. This revenue goes into facilities, scholarships, salaries for employees and also giving back to the university. In this past 2015-2016 season, the University of South Carolina brought in a record revenue for the university at $106 million.  One proposed plan anticipates to give athletes participating in revenue-generating sports, such as football and men's and women's basketball a $5,000 stipend.  This model would "..cost collectively, between $300 million- $500 million" (McEldowney). So the question now is where will the university get the money to give these athletes a salary? Athletic departments will have to adjust their spending to compensate for the new athlete salaries. One way to do this is by cutting down funds or, in the extreme case, cutting full programs for non-revenue-generating sports. Sports such as soccer, track and field, golf, volleyball, and swimming will be threatened if this new plan in enacted.  Bob Wuornos makes a very valid point by stating "..it will only be a matter of time before competition and litigation push the big-time athletes' stipends ever higher, and athletic directors will be pressed to make up the difference by cutting the teams that the big-money sports once subsidized" (Wuornos).  He believes that if universities choose to start giving extra funds to their athletes, the issue will keep coming back. The next argument will be "Student-Athletes aren't being paid enough!" The issue is an endless cycle that will keep pushing for higher salaries for the athletes. If the salaries are made higher, the athletic department must cut funds from other programs. Non-revenue generating sports will be the victims and receive all of the side affects of this decision. Is it fair that athletes who work just as hard be rewarded by having their programs cut? Absolutely not. 

Choosing to put a price on college athletes will affect the non-revenue generating athletes in more ways than one.  If universities start to compensate their athletes, it will only be for the big name sports including football and basketball.  So where does that leave sports like golf, gymnastics and swimming? They will be left unrecognized and will be swept aside by the athletic program.  By choosing to pay a selective list of sports, universities will be showing favoritism for the athletes who make the school greater sums of money.  It is completely unfair for athletes to be paid just because they are involved in a sport that is more popular and widely watched by fans nationwide.  Sports analyst Kieran McCauley states "The reality of the situation is there is too big a gray area when it comes to analyzing different sports." She believes there is no fair way to go about this issue. It is plain and simple, some athletes will be compensated, and some will not.  This would take a major hit on Olympic sports who do not receive as much hype as say the football team.  Another blurred area is where the line would be drawn for paying athletes according to gender. The big-name sports are male-dominated, so the issue then becomes unfair for athletes of different genders.  It took many years to enforce a more equal field for women in collegiate sports, and by choosing to pay a majority of the male athletes, this issue will cause more dispute.  By showing favoritism to revenue sports, it gives the school a very poor and unethical reputation.  A prospective student who is deciding between colleges would most likely not choose one that treats its students unfairly. 

A big factor in why college athletics are so fascinating for fans is because it involves amateur athletes.  People enjoy watching athletes represent their school because it is a source of pride for them.  It is exciting for them to cheer for their alma mater in an NCAA tournament and be able to tell others "that's where I went to school!" The athletes have walked the same halls as them, taken the same classes, and live in the same dorm residences as they did.  Collegiate athletes are receiving more fame and recognition each and every year, but what people are failing to remember is that these athletes are still amateurs.  They are by no means professional athletes that deserve salaries. Student-athletes themselves are a prominent group of supporters that are advocating the pay-for-play issue.  Former collegiate basketball player at UCLA, Tyson Hartnett, wrote an article about his support of this issue.  He describes his experience as a college basketball player and how "being an athlete is a full time job" (Hartnett). He goes on to bash the minimal funds that athletes receive and the rigorous schedules they have while in-season. Hartnett's close-minded view of this issue blocks him from understanding that part of being an amateur collegiate athlete is knowing how to balance traveling, practice, social activities and school. It is hard, but that's what makes student-athletes so special.  They are talented individuals with a lot of things to juggle in their lives.  Not to mention, student-athletes are given endless resources by their academic advisors and by the school community to help them be successful.  Instead of complaining about not receiving compensation, college athletes need to be appreciative that they get the opportunity of a lifetime to represent their university on an athletic stage.  They need to "..recognize their opportunity as a privilege, that most young kids aspire to attain, but are never given the opportunity to have. [..] It's about fulfilling a childhood dream.  And kids aren't dreaming about what monetary benefits they might get if they play in college while standing in the outfield pounding their mitts, running into a team huddle or doing a victory dance celebrating a touchdown, as they shouldn't" (Murphy). Getting the chance to represent something bigger than yourself is not a frequent opportunity, so if given the chance, athletes need to be humble and make the most of it.

Among the many flaws that are associated with the pay-for-play plan, the use of the salary should also be accounted.  If this plan were to be enforced, how will the NCAA monitor what the money is used for? There must be some regulation of where the money goes because it could lead to many scandals if the money goes towards illegal possessions or actions.  The last thing the NCAA wants is the front cover of Time Magazine to state "NCAA Gives Athletes Money for Drugs." If the money was to be given out in the form of checks, they would need to arrange a system to monitor what the money is going towards.  Also, once they figure out a way to monitor the money, they need to help ensure that athletes have smart spending abilities.  Some schools for instance, "The University of Texas [..]  announced that it was prepared to pay its athletes an additional stipend of up to $10,000" (Wuornos).  That is an extreme amount of money to just hand over to a college student.  Athletes in general are infamous for living lavish lifestyles and spending their money wastefully.  On top of that, college students are also some of the worst spenders of all age categories.  Put those together and it is just a disaster waiting to happen.  An article written by Davis Malone states, ""Sports Illustrated concluded that within two years of retirement 78% of former NFL players are broke or under financial stress. As for the NBA, within five years of retirement their former players were broke 60% of the time (Torre)." Now image how college athletes would go broke if they were given the amount of money people are suggesting they make"" (Malone).  If professional athletes can not even manage their salaries and spend their money wisely, how can we expect young and reckless college student-athletes to do so?

On the moral side of this issue comes a whole other influx of negative affects.  By enforcing the pay-for-play plan, recruited athletes will not judge a school as they normally would (ex. Their academics, facilities, location, values, etc.), but they would commit to a school who will pay them the highest salary.   This new plan gives schools the ability to choose their compensation price, so all schools will most likely be different.  This changes the whole ball game for the college recruiting process and will in turn affect the quality of athletic teams.  The most talented players will end up at schools with the highest compensations.  In Ekow Yankah's article he explains that "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.  This is not naive idealism" (Yankah). Ethics will be removed from college choosing and it will become a money game.

Whether you may realize it or not, this pay-for-play plan is already affecting us right here at the University of South Carolina.  In April of 2015, the state of South Carolina proposed a bill that would require South Carolina's largest colleges to pay student-athletes a salary of $10,000 each year.  The proposed amount "would violate NCAA regulations" as said by school officials.  Ray Tanner, University of South Carolina's athletic director, stated that if the bill passed "We'd either violate a state law of the NCAA" (Shain). Instead of passing the bill, Ray Tanner testified and gave an alternate solution to give scholarship athletes more compensation.  He stated, "USC plans to give full-scholarship athletes $4,201 a year, starting in August. A student-athlete receiving a half scholarship would get $2,100. Athletes would get payments every two weeks" (The State Newspaper).  This shows that the university has already acted upon starting to compensate student-athletes.  The stipends have started at a low amount, but the possibility of it rising is very likely.  If the university lets this continue, there could be major changes in the dynamic of our athletic department.  Instead of looking to give athletes more and more money on top of their scholarships, alternative measures should be taken. 

There are many different options that athletes and athletic departments can take instead of choosing to pay their athletes.  Since so many athletes and sports fanatics claim that student-athletes are exploited and need to be paid, there is one easy solution: if you think you are better than the amateur status, go play professionally where you will get paid.  Going to college is not a job, and neither is playing a sport in college so, as simply worded by McCauley, "If players are that good and feel they deserve to be paid, they can make it to the professionals" (McCauley).  It is just like the common saying, "If you don't like it, leave." There is no reason athletes need to stick around and protest for a salary because they knew coming into college that it would be an amateur playing field.  As also pointed out by McCauley, "Television helps these kids market themselves. For better or worse even if an athlete does not pan out into the professionals, they at least made a name for themselves. It will help them find a job when they graduate -- debt free -- out of college." This extremely valid point brings light to the fact that one of the opportunities that college athletics provides, is the ability to get your name out there.  Even a professional career in sports is not in the picture, the status of being a college athlete will help you in the long run.  It is very impressive to see that someone competed in college athletics on a resume and could be very beneficial to post-collegiate athletes who are applying for jobs. 

As I stated earlier, most college athletes push for the pay-for-play to be adopted at their universities.  I mean, come on, who wouldn't want to receive extra cash while attending college? Well, I myself am a Division 1 collegiate athlete at the University of South Carolina and I disagree.  From being an athlete, I get to see and take part in something that other normal students don't have the chance to.  While I do agree that being a student-athlete is very challenging, I would not go as far to say that it is a "full-time job."  There is one thing that we are told when we enter the world of college sports: we are students before athletes.  Sometimes, with practice at 6:00am four days a week and five hours of practice each day it feels like the athletics are taking over, but then I have to remind myself that the reason I am being given a scholarship to come here is for the education.  Part of what makes us elite is our ability to handle school and athletics, all the while being good representatives of our university.  As much as I'd love to be paid extra, I can still recognize that I am an amateur athlete who is not supposed to be paid.  I am also a participant in a non-revenue generating sport, swimming.  One extremely disturbing factor of this plan to me is that I work my ass off just as hard as the athletes in revenue-generating sports, so why won't I receive a stipend?  Just because the sport I love to do doesn't bring in a big crowd or revenue, does not be I should be treated differently than someone who does participate in a popular sport.  This also goes for most female sports as well.  If the only female sport that will be compensated is women's basketball, how is that fair to the golf, tennis, volleyball, track and field, soccer and all other women's sports that compete for our university.  So why can't the NCAA leave rules the way they have always been? A scholarship system and balance among sports has been attained with Title IX, so why can't the issue just been thrown away? It all comes down to a very blatant and truthful point identified by Ekow Yankah that this issue is just "..another manifestation of the corrosive American belief that anything that has value must also have a price."

