The amateur status of college athletics interests me because as a sport and entertainment management major, my focus is in the world of sport and this is a current controversial issue. The University of South Carolina is in the South Eastern Conference which is one of the toughest in the country for all of our athletic teams. Sports is a big focus at our university which makes studying it here that much more relevant. I have always believed that college athletes should remain unpaid because the amateur status of the athletes that participate was part of the foundation that college athletics was formed on. While I am not a college athlete myself, throughout the end of high school I was in contact with the coaches of the NCAA Equestrian here on campus. I have been riding horses most of my life and I was potentially going to continue that hobby through college. An injury my junior year set me back from that dream but I have done extensive research on the rules and regulations of the NCAA as I had to follow them during the high school recruitment process. I believe this qualifies me to discuss this topic as I have a direct connection to the varsity athletic department here at USC. 

Michael Mondello's article "Public Perceptions on Paying Student Athletes" gives a very informative overview of the debate over paying college athletes. It includes a study done to reveal how the public perceives compensation for student athletes. The study revealed that the majority of people did not believe in additional compensation for student athletes but there are good points made about the capitalistic argument. Large universities make millions of dollars off of their players so many people believe that they should share in the profit however the NCAA has strict rules about amateurism when it comes to playing college sports. Author Michael Mondello teaches Sport Business Analytics and Sport & Entertainment Finance at the University of South Florida's Muma college of business. He shows clear credentials that he is educated enough in this line of work to discuss the topics pertaining to paying college players. 

In Andrew Zimablist's article "Paying College Athletes: Take Two" he addresses a previous article about how colleges can afford to pay their athletes considering how much money circulates in and out of most college campuses. He rebuttals this article with evidence that most Universities actually don't make a profit. What money the schools do make goes into paying to keep the university going so their is no money left over. This is just one more way to look at salaries for college athletes. He also brings up the main argument that college athletes are not supposed to be professionals. Mr. Zimablist is credible to discuss this topic because he is a Professor of economics at Smith college so he is well versed to discuss money and finances on an issue such as this one. 

"Why N.C.A.A. Athletes Shouldn't be Paid" Ekow N Yankah makes some very good points for this argument. His focus doesn't include money or politics but the overall idea of why college athletics started in the first place. The real reason people go to college is to get an education and going to school with these athletes makes a communal connection. They are in the same classes taking the same test. Yes they are celebrities but Yankah highlights that it is not about the money when these athletes pick a school it is about the community they are now going to be a part of and play for. Yankah is a Professor of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and publishing his article in The New Yorker gives him high credibility. 

My research question is arguable because there are two opposing sides that have good points to share on this topic. The people that are for paying college athletes discuss that they should share in the millions of dollars in profits that they are bringing into their schools. The coaches and sponsors that they play for are also making tons of money so people believe they should gain something from their hard work. Opposing arguments to that say that the NCAA has always had rules on amateurism and the idea that these athletes are first and foremost students. Others also believe that the tuition, textbooks, room and board, trainers and other added benefits of being a student athlete are payment enough. Both sides have valid arguments which is why this is a hot topic right now. My research has opened my eyes to new arguments to be made for both sides. I still stand by my original stance that they should remain unpaid but these articles do bring up good counterarguments for me to consider. 
