March is arguably the greatest month of the year for a sports fan. March Madness gets the attention of everyone all across the country. 2015 scored the highest TV rating in 18 years. "The NCAA has signed a $6,200,000,000, 11-year deal giving CBS the rights to televise its men's basketball championship" (Eitzen). On top of the large TV deal, the NCAA hosts the tournament in major cities with stadium capacity of around 30,000. It's a similar case with the College Football bowl games. "The major conferences have an eight-year package (ending in 2006) worth $930,000,000 with ABC to televise the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) at the conclusion of the regular football season" (Eitzen). Where does all the money go? "The governing body of big-time college sports, the NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic Association], is caught in a huge contradiction -- trying to reconcile a multibillion-dollar industry while claiming it is really an amateur activity" (Eitzen). Amateur sports like high school make enough to keep the team funded, while college sports like football and basketball make million dollar revenues. So why are they amateurs? Because they receive scholarships to play at a school, is that really enough? The average worth of athletic scholarships is $23,000, now that might seem to be a lot but in reality the players for football and basketball are worth plenty more (The 2 Minutes Warning). I believe those who are performing and making sacrifices for this million-dollar business deserve a share. Many experts believe student athletes do not deserve to be paid in college due to the amount of benefits they get from scholarship. However, not all sports teams are making money for their school. The majority of schools in fact don't make any profit in their athletic department. Part of the problem is that these athletic programs are supposed to be non-profit so they spend money on infrastructure and the sports that make little to no money. Shouldn't these players get some sort of compensation? Why should the money making athletes be kept dry because the NCAA says so? Some may argue that the athletes go to school for the education, however with school, workouts, and studying these athletes have a full time job every single day without pay. What I believe is that the NCAA or the universities should pay major sport athletes such as Football and Men's Basketball. This argument has been lingering for a long time its gaining relevance with the increase of TV deals and money to be made by the schools. My solution to the problem is that student athletes should get payed after college to keep the integrity of the game. These student athletes are on the short end of a multimillion dollar entertainment business, they work at their sport as a full time job, and for them to have their voice heard they need to unionize. In many cases these athletes need more than a scholarship. I believe these major sports need to grow out of the NCAA into their own atmosphere in order for athletes to be compensated after college without interfering with Title IX. The NCAA should not be allowed to make money off students and prevent the students from making money off themselves. 

Some sports fans will bash on professional sports teams saying "they don't try hard enough" or "they're only in it for the money". In some cases, that may be true but they get paid handsomely for the amount of revenue produced by their respected organizations. "According to a report by the NCPA and Drexel University the market value of the average college football player is $178,000 per year" (The 2 Minute Warning). If the student athletes can make this much money shouldn't they be able to get paid that much money? I don't believe the average athlete would be paid that much money but they deserve a cut. I think in order to keep the integrity of the game paying players after college would increase their incentive to work harder and possibly pursue more academic endeavors. Unfortunately, the NCAA currently refuses for players to get any compensations or they get punished. Sometimes these people of interest who pay the players are just trying to help them, after all they're un-payed college students working full time. "Perhaps creating a method of payment above and beyond scholarships would help to decrease the amount of corruption, and "under the table" activities of some of these nationally recognized sports programs" (Meshefejian). Ultimately these students aren't allowed to make money off themselves but the NCAA and universities can take it all. The post collegiate compensation for the students would not allow any change to the play of the game, it would probably leave more players in college athletics to work to their full potential in athletics and their education. People believe the "one and done system" (basketball players staying for freshman year to leave for the NBA the following year) hurts college basketball, but if these players have money waiting for them after college they might want to stay and use their scholarship to the full extent and graduate with a degree. Some may wonder, how would this effect the small sports being excluded from being paid? For those athletes not getting payed for their sport it would be a likely conclusion that after college with the exception to baseball most of those sports don't carry a wide demand at the professional level. We can rule out baseball because Major League Baseball allows teams to draft players out of high school, so if they are good enough to get paid they will. Major League Baseball also has developmental leagues that pay small salaries to player. But, for those smaller sports the players play for the same reason as the other athletes: for the love of the game. At the high stage of college athletics there should be no doubt why they're competing. 

A large step for these major sports teams to be made in order to make payment for their players would be leaving the NCAA to start a semiprofessional league of their own. This would be very difficult because why would the colleges want to leave the NCAA when they're making money of their student athletes? If they want their best athletes to stay for a full four years, they should give them a reason to stay. A clear answer is money it's the only reason they would leave college. If they are capable of making that much money, why should they not be allowed to? "In 2012, the NCAA reported $871.6 million in revenue. In the 2012 -- 13 fiscal year, the University of Alabama's Athletic Department alone made $143.4 million, combining proceeds from ticket sales, donations to the athletic department, media rights, branding, and numerous other revenue streams" (Vanderford). Not too many amateur sports make that kind of money. Not to soon after in 2014 the Northwestern University football team filed a lawsuit against the university stating that they are employees not just students. The ruling that came later was "The National Labor Relations Board in Chicago has ruled that football players at Northwestern University are employees and can unionize" (Ganim). This was a huge step for college athletes. Northwestern tried to fight but, "the board's decision indicates that there was enough evidence presented that the athletes are employees of the university -- getting paid in the form of scholarships, working between 20 and 50 hours per week and generating millions of dollars for their institutions" (Ganim). With the power of unionizing the team could begin collective bargaining for better medical coverage, concussion testing, and the possibility of getting paid. If more teams began to join in on this idea they could fight for what they deserve, equal opportunity as employees. If this trend grew they could begin to expand away from the NCAA. That is if the students themselves want the money they should rightfully have. Unionizing is important because now the players have a seat at the table when it comes to the grand scheme of this business. In the case of Kyle Hendrick he hurt his knee, he incurred a lot of expenses trying to get it treated, and his university took away his scholarship, he didn't get to finish school, and his family was stuck with a five figure bill (CNN "Crossfire"). If the team had a union they would have potential to get the school to cover the medical expenses from his injury, keep him in school, and maybe take the costs from his scholarship and apply it to his medical bill. The opportunities are endless if they unionize. These players are making millions of dollars for their schools, if they believe they're employees they need to be treated as so and form unions to establish their rights. If the NCAA is concerned about college athletes unionizing, they need to smell the fresh air and realize those athletes are their employees. The National Relations Labor act states, "employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representation of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining" (Vanderford). The NCAA and college programs need to treat their players in the same group as their coaches. Some of these coaches get paid millions of dollars because the school compensates them as the source of the revenue being made. That would be like a university President getting paid and the teachers get nothing. Coaches and players are both employees of the universities, and they are catching on like the ones at Northwestern asking themselves what they're really worth to the school. These schools pay these coaches millions for them to bring in the best players and to win the most games. Winning produces success for the school and brings in TV, ticket, and apparel sales which promotes the school. The athletes get the pride of knowing their success but have to continue an intensive schedule. Paying these athletes after college would thank them for the sacrifices they have made for the school. 

Scholarships are what the school offers the exceptional athletes that attend their institution. Just like Kyle Hendrick the school has the right to revoke their scholarship. For Silas Nacita a Baylor football player he was homeless and was offered money by someone to live in a home for the summer, 2 months later the NCAA went after him and now he is ineligible to play football (The 2 Minute Warning). Someone was just trying to help a homeless athlete when he needed it. The NCAA does as much as it can to make sure that players don't get paid. The NCAA has no problem making money off the students but is quick to punish the players for getting money. The NCAA does as much as they can to make sure these players don't get paid. I believe paying these students after college would not interfere with the integrity or quality of the game. If Silas Nacita was supported by a union the union could've fought for him to have stayed eligible. If unions worked to fight against the NCAA, they could establish rights for themselves where taking charity wouldn't be in the wrong. Who are the NCAA to say these players don't deserve what people are offering them? These hard working athletes know they work hard and if someone's acknowledging that they're likely to receive whatever gift. Just because they're on scholarship doesn't make them spoiled and well compensated. Why should the NCAA have complete dominance over those who represent it? Unionizing is the first step for the players to get their money. 

If the football players and basketball players of the major conferences unionize they will have access to negotiate with the NCAA and the conference TV deals that run their sports. If these money making sports wanted to take the extra step of getting paid the best way of negotiating would be of coming to a deal of paying these students after college. I think a fair amount would be 20% back of scholarship money they were eligible for. Many athletes might have health problems, financial problems, or dependents to take care of. If they don't want to pay athletes basketball might suffer. Players are ready for the NBA and want to be paid for it. Players come and go after just a year. These kids coming right out of high school know they have the talent and so do the NBA coaches. The NBA however doesn't allow the jump from high school to the NBA anymore. The NBA has a free league of developing players. The schools like to think they're coming for an education but the players are staying focused on the court. Some basketball recruits are playing overseas for a year to make money before they're eligible for the draft. The NCAA believes it's an amateur level sporting platform, but in reality it's not the same as high school level sports, millions of dollars are being made. These major sports conferences need to remove their teams from the NCAA and pull those sports (football and basketball) and form their own semiprofessional sports associations. These sports are clearly the most popular fan sports and where the money is at if they form a semiprofessional sports association they will draw in more attention leading to more money. Like I've said I think paying these athletes after college would help them exceptionally and not impact the way the game is played. Paying after college would keep the athletes who are not going pro after college. Universities would have more graduating athletes and those who would leave early would be compensated less for their early absence. This semiprofessional sports association could improve the professional sports level by adding my college graduates improving the public image of college sports. Whether that image for those big names sports is play for the money, that is why the full time athlete goes too. Yes, I won't be getting paid for my grades but I plan on getting a degree to keep me stable and active as an adult.  You could argue the purpose of college is for education. In no way is that wrong, however some student athletes wouldn't be able to without their athletic scholarship. The school is putting their money on the scholarship so the individual can work hard and bring in the entertainment money for the school. It's a flawed system where some athletes have forced to spend all their attention on school and their sport when it's clear where their interests are at. Maybe if these borderline athletes could be incentivized they would stay to earn a degree. The money is there football and basketball have lavish deals with TV networks to make paying these athletes possible. The NCAA needs to remove any laws they have on athletes receiving benefits not from the school. The school doesn't own and if they think they do the athletes will be gone quick. If these sports conferences, choose to do the right thing and pay their players they will have to form their own sports association or deal with the consequences of violating Title IX. Now of course they just could pay all the athletes but that wouldn't be fair to the people who are selling out stadiums, selling jerseys, and leading the sports world. 

Title IX: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." Title IX applies to all college athletes because they're students and they represent a college. But, if negotiations were to happen to pay some athletes they would need to pay them all. If all athletes were to be paid schools would most likely lose money and would have to settle for less of a pay cut for the athletes. If the two major sports formed their own semiprofessional league that would pay the players, they could pay these athletes as semiprofessionals. The reason for only paying those two sports in the major conferences is because those are the teams in the conferences that produce the most money. In order to avoid Title IX, the semiprofessional league would need to be formed of the high revenue sports who can afford to accommodate their athletes after college. Avoiding Title IX wouldn't be to pay these athletes an incredible amount of money I believe a fair amount of money for these two sports would be able to be discussed by player unions and the universities and regulated under semiprofessional guidelines. 

"The notion that a full scholarship isn't a fair exchange for athletic services provided to a university -- regardless of how much money an athletic department generates from those services -- is ridiculous" (Whitlock). "I always thought part of the educational process at college was "the struggle." "A kid shouldn't eat McDonald's every day. Some days he should be forced to eat macaroni and cheese because he blew all of his money on beer, pizza and weed over the weekend. And trust me on this, you give a bunch of teenage, wannabe professional athletes a stipend and a significant portion of that money will be going directly to the local "pharmacist" for steroids and marijuana, another good chunk will get guzzled down a beer bong and the rest will be a down payment on a platinum necklace, just like the one Lil Wayne wore in his last video" (Whitlock). Maybe Whitlock is right these athletes don't deserve to get paid because they're a bunch of immature college kids. Except he's not, Whitlock was a low level division 1 football player. Why is that relevant? Because the revenue being made off these athletes is only increasing every year deal by deal. These athletes are guaranteed a scholarship if they're fortunate enough to stay healthy. Also, the way to avoid premature and reckless spending is easy, pay the athletes after college. Give them sometime so they can decide what to do with the money. You may think what if they leave after 1 season? I think the fairest way to pay them is 20% back of any scholarship they qualified for or 20% back to those who graduate. It's not hard to say college students shouldn't be getting paid in college, but they deserve something more and if it comes after college that seems fair enough to put these young adults in a path of success. If the students can form unions, they will finally be able to push for the role of an employee. Some schools might not allow unions and threaten to drop the sports from division 1. However, that would be a suicide move by the school that would only hurt themselves. It would not be a good move to punish the students for trying to voice their opinions. I strongly believe these changes should be considered by the athletes and the NCAA. It would benefit both sides and rightfully include the athletes who are performing for this large entertainment industry. In order to pay the athletes, it would be a long and challenging process to get there, but well deserving. This problem has drawn many questions but I believe that paying the players after college will avoid many issues people wonder about. Paying these players would not hurt the integrity of the game and would also produce more college graduates. So why is the NCAA so against letting the athletes make money? These student athletes are on the short end of a multimillion dollar entertainment business, they work at their sport as a full time job, and for them to have their voice heard they need to unionize. In many cases these athletes need more than a scholarship. I believe these major sports need to grow out of the NCAA into a semiprofessional league that it really is in order for athletes to be compensated. This issue will be solved soon, if not only more problems will rise up. The NCAA should do the right things and free the athletes who are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

