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 conferences in the country for the entire athletic department. Sports is a big focus at our university which makes studying it here that much more relevant and I have been given the opportunity to volunteer for multiple athletic events here on campus to gain experience. I have always believed that college athletes should remain unpaid because the foundation of college athletics was built on amateurism. While I am not a college athlete myself, throughout the end of high school I was in contact with the coaches of the National Collegiate Athletic Association Equestrian team here on campus. I have been riding horses most of my life and I was potentially going to continue that passion 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. 

 The official website of the NCAA, NCAA.org, is a source I decided to use for my research because it gives great insight into what the organization does and what its values are. It was created by the organization itself so it is bias towards its own cause; however, it is a valuable resource because it helped me argue for their stance of retaining amateurism in NCAA rated sports. This website has a thorough description of the organization and it has valuable links for current, past, and present athletes. It has detailed sources for all three of its divisions in addition to a page dedicated specifically to what the NCAA is. This website is intended to let the public know about the organization in addition to supporting the student athletes in as many ways as possible. 

Another source I used as research for my paper was written by Ekow N Yankah, a Professor of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. He published his article "Why N.C.A.A. Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid" in the New Yorker to argue against the proposed idea of giving college athletes salaries beyond their normal compensation. He begins by highlighting the recent court case forcing the NCAA to pay athletes the full cost of attendance and to give athletes deferred compensation for the use of their image in video games and other commercial products. 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; even though most college athletes will not go pro, they will show the same high level of dedication to gratify their peers and fans. Yes, these athletes are treated as celebrities but Yankah highlights that it is not about the money and fame when these athletes pick a school; it is about the community they are now going to be a part of and play for. 

A source that I chose to use in my counterclaim paragraph was an article published in the ST. Louis University Public Law Review titled "Roadblocks: Examining Title Ix & The Fair Compensation of Division I Intercollegiate Student-Athletes." Robert Grimmett-Norris, a published staff member of St. Louis University School of Law, wrote this detailed and articulate essay to highlight the legal and financial reasons why college athletes should be paid. His largest argument is that the athletes are being treated unjustly when the university and coaches they play for are making millions of dollars off of their hard work. Due to the fact that without those players, the enormous revenue generation would not exist, they should play a role in how it is delegated. 

My research question is debatable because there are two opposing sides that have good points to contribute 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 share in the rewards 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 counterclaims for me to analyze and refute. 
