The debate whether college athletes should be paid or not is nothing new.  In fact, watching the men's NCAA Tournament really brought to light the result of the athlete's time, work, and commitment. An athlete's journey begins at a very young age with the introduction to sports with the time and commitment needed to excel.  Early in life, these young athletes are taught to eat, breath, and sleep their sport being pushed to excel often beyond their limits.  As they grow, they dedicate their full attention to one particular sport making it their sole focus.  If all goes well, the intense focus by the athletes ultimately result in recognition by college scouts and a transition to a televised college level athlete. Upon arriving at an institution of higher education, the journey results in the receipt of many benefits. This is where the controversy starts. Are these benefits enough to recognize the dedication, time, and commitment spent by each athlete for so many years or would paying these young athletes be more appropriate to recognize their commitment and skill. While I respect the dedication, commitment and skill, I believe they should not be paid.  I do however, think they should be acknowledged. Respect is due for the time, effort, and commitment on behalf of the college football athletes; however, credit should be assumed for the extensive benefits received by these athletes.  While I do believe there should be acknowledgment, college football athletes should not be paid as these athletes already receive exceeding benefits; the money for these athletes would take away from the university funding abilities for other students putting the same amount of effort, time, and dedication on academic ventures 

Sports are an important factor in youth life. "Sports help children develop teamwork skills, self-confidence, resiliency, moral character, and other personal strengths" (Price-Mitchell). They are also the beginning of dreams leading to something bigger. Having children involved in sports get those to communicate with others along with achieving daily exercise.  Ultimately being a part of team sports are most children's fantasy as many dream of growing to be a professional athlete. At the elementary school age, all children are included, allowing everyone to be involved and have a sense of worthiness. It also creates a level playing field and allows the children to be exposed to all sports and evaluate what they enjoy. In middle school, sports become more competitive within school and outside of school. It's a time for children to figure out not only what they enjoy, but where they excel. Most have decided to focus specifically on one or two sports they have a passion for, but continue participation in many for the social aspect. Once in high school, the focus is generally down to one specific sport and they begin to eliminate participation in other sports, focusing on their passion and how to become the best in their given sport. The good ones begin to excel and be identified, college scouting begins and players begin to make a college choice based on their ability to succeed and ultimately be noticed by the professional outfits of their chosen sport. The competitiveness of each sport increases as the athletes work to show their best for recruitment. 

Through this journey, college football is one sport where the trends and the controversy become visible. College football is a very popular route for many boys as it's an opportunity to experience comradery at a level many don't get to experience.  It's also creates opportunity for support for a large college debt so many Americans experience. As a boy becomes a man in college and the level of play increases, so does the argument about college athletes being paid. The debate whether college athletes should be paid or not is not a new argument. John Solomon wrote about this in the 2009 O'bannon case. O'bannon, an ex-basketball player, sued the NCAA declaring players should be paid.  While the judge sided with him that athletes should get 5,000 dollars on top of benefits, another judge stated it went against the antitrust law and further stated athletes receive enough benefits with the exception of the cost of schooling (Soloman). College football is very competitive and indeed requires a great deal of time and skills not all possess. In fact, watching college level football games on television, seeing the amount of people in attendance, and the revenue generated by ticket and concession stand sales, not to mention the advertising paid by companies to air commercials during the games all fuel the argument if athletes should be paid. "The NCAA stated that college athletes are amateurs and that anything amounting to the pay for play would transform college sports into something unrecognizable, professionalizing the players and hurting the business model for college sports" (Tracy and Strauss). Though both sides offer valid arguments, I continue my belief college athletes should not be paid, but supported and compensated in other ways.  

Most top-level college athletes, no matter what the sport, receive athletic scholarships. Top college athletes often receive a free education resulting in no loans or the associated pressure stemming from paying them off. "The median amount a division one school spends on scholarship football players, as of 2013, is $156,647. The amount spent on a full time student is $14,979" (Theodore Ross, 46).  The universities are granting a free education in exchange for their hard work, time and commitment to the sport and university, and the attention and revenue it brings to the university.  Included in the free education for athletes, most receive money to cover their cost of living on campus, meals, and textbooks. Some would argue that it is not unjust. However, consider the top student in an academic program, as they may receive a scholarship for their amazing scientific studies but do not receive any further benefits to match the offer to the athletes.   As an athlete demonstrates their abilities in games, non-athletes put in the same dedication that can give an individual contribution to the world.  Should a higher value be put on entertainment then academics?   I would assert not. 

As a non-athlete is required to maintain a particular GPA for their scholarship, an athlete also has demands. Athletes are required to attend workouts up to two times a day. Practices occur early morning before classes and often in the afternoon when classes are over. On top of those practices they are often required to attend off-season workouts making them year round athletes. Yearlong workouts result in being at school during the summer time away from family and attending study halls throughout the school year. Non athletes are often required to study abroad or study ridiculous number of hours to be the top of their class to get the better paying jobs or to gain needed access to impact the world.  It does not make sense that a college athlete should make more money than a non-athlete simply because their athletic program brings the college more prestige.   I would argue the athletic prestige brings immediate value and recognition to the university where a non-athlete's is a bit more long-term.  

With all the debate however, college sports is an honor and an achievement and should be recognized as such. "For every high school athlete that dreams of playing in college, only about 7 percent go on to do it. Furthermore, only 2 percent of these people play in a Division I school." (Listland) Two percent is not a lot as it represents the competitiveness in making it to college sports and is reflective of an elite group.  It is important for college athletes to recognize the opportunity they have to play in college is something that millions only dream of. Paying college athletes takes away from the fulfillment of the game.   Playing in college should be done for the love of the game, after all, is it as for a single game, week after week. 

"Most people see playing in college as a fulfillment of their childhood dreams, and most childhood dreams are unconcerned with the money that could come along with a career in sports. Instead, they dream of talking to their team in a huddle, doing their victory dance in front of a crowd of 100,000 after scoring a touchdown and feeling the pride of walking through campus after winning the big game. The most these students should be getting out of playing in college is the pride, gratification and competition of the game. They should feel the thrill of their victories and the pure agony of being defeated. This is the heart of the game in college, and doing it for any other reason, such as money, lessons the dreams of those who want to be in the same position." (Listland)

Often, non-athletes are not financially rewarded when they complete internships for their degrees. College sports are similar to an academic internship.  As college sports prepare an athlete for a future in pro sports, internships prepare non-athletes for their future in the workplace. If people who have the ability to impact or change the world are not paid, where is the justice in paying college athletes as they prepare for their future?  In addition, in college sports, the unpaid support staff, such as people who give the athletes water during breaks, retrieve their bats, or carry their golf clubs should be considered as well.  Should they be paid during their time in college?    No one in sports or the academic world make it on their own.  There is always a support staff that contributes and should be recognized equally for their contribution.    

To bring the athletic and the academic world together, it is good to review the controversy of no pass no play. With such a low percent of athletes graduating at many major universities across the nation, this movement has gained a lot of traction. Athletes work hard and in such are compensated through athletic scholarships, support with textbooks and campus living. This compensation to the athlete could give them a false sense of security about their future.  No pass, no play at a minimum ensures the athlete can survive should a pro sport position not be in their future. With the absence of that policy to some level in college along with compensation sets a false sense of security for their future and has the ability to prohibit the athlete from future success outside of sports. As it is the athletes responsibility to complete their work and be present in there class, it should be the universities responsibility to uphold these policies, even if that means loosing the big game because your star player is out. This would hold the athletes to the same responsibility as everyone and uphold a positive future for the athletes as not everyone dream will come true of making it professional, and if they don't they have a second option of pursuing their degree.

In addition to the benefits a college athlete experience, they also experience promotion of their ability through publicity. Consider ESPN's game day for college football. Unfortunately, non-athletes don't have the same platform to promote their abilities to future employers. College level football players also receive many non-paid promotions such as video games and commercials. "The basis of the demand for even more money is that the university will use the player's likeness in their marketing, to generate money" (Desai). Video games are a prime example as there is a new version made each year with the current players name and stats.   These games are a publicity contribution to the player, as it represents their stats and abilities. 

If college athletes were to get paid, it would place a financial burden on the university. Currently, each university has a certain amount of money available for scholarships, university improvements and student activities. Although it does seem logical that the universities support payment to the athletes through the money generated by the sports, it is also that revenue that supports the scholarships for all, improvements and student activities.  Universities are always working to better their athletic department to bring in even more people and money than before to support all programs. One example is Auburn University, "In 2015, the school debuted their newest addition, an almost 11,000 square feet, high-definition screen in the stadium. The glow from this screen can be seen up to 30 miles away, and it came to the university at a cost of $13.9 million." (Listland) As people view this as an example that the school has money to pay athletes, what they don't know is that "Auburn athletic department posted a $17 million deficit in 2014 and this screen was the equivalent of a 'Hail Mary' pass to try to bring more money into the program." (Listland).   

Paying or compensating athletes is not a new argument.  Simply said, universities must keep a level playing field for both athletes and non-athletes. Opening the door to paying athletes will generate an equal fight for the non-athletes.  I believe paying the athletes without an equal acknowledgement to the non-athletes will impact the difference non-athletes make in the world.    We the entrepreneurial focus of today's world, I don't think that is an argument the universities are ready to take on.  

