College athletes spend most of their time during their four year tenure at the school practicing, working out, or playing in games for their respected schools. Each athlete brings something to the team and school that the other does not. They all are unique and a necessity for the sports programs. This debate interests me because it so relevant in today's society and I think these student athletes are experiencing an injustice. Coaches and Athletic Directors are paid millions upon millions of dollars for a job that does not deserve that amount of compensation. The athletes are what make the NCAA, schools, and, ultimately, the coaches and directors their money. Why should they do all the work and not be paid? I value fairness and justice. Research into this topic will prove that what is going on is not fair nor just. The area of Florida where I come from produces dozens of Division I athletes every year. Some of which become the best in their support, for example Heisman Trophy winners Tim Tebow and Derrick Henry. I personally know a good amount and have talked to even more. All of the ones I have had conversations with say that their scholarships do not cover enough for their expenses in college. My connections with these individuals along with my passion for the subject allow for me to be able to write about this subject. Student athletes do not deserve to be punished for their work by having to dig into their savings or even borrow money for simple things such as food and water. Each athlete demands right compensation for what they earn in promotions and games. Research and facts will support my claims. 


Many people believe that a student athlete's scholarship, sometimes worth up to an excess of one hundred thousand dollars, is enough of a compensation. This notion is unbelievably false. College athletes still have to pay for things such as extra food for their active lifestyle, recovery drinks, and, yes, the occasional beer after a big game. It is naive to believe that college athletes or even regular students won't have an alcoholic drink over their time at their universities. Sean Gregory's "It's Time to Pay College Athletes" focuses on these centrals claims. It examines and explores the facts behind a corrupt system between the NCAA, its schools, and their athletes. Gregory supports this claim that not only are coaches enormously overpaid but that the schools make a huge profit off of their athletics. For example, the University of Texas football team made seventy-seven point nine million dollars in profit in the 2011-2012 season. The article outlines a plausible solution for this problem: a watered down cap system in addition to the Olympic model. Under this teams in major revenue producing sports, football and basketball, would have a cap and be allowed to pay their players any amount under the maximum contract that would keep them under their cap. Along with that players could benefit off of sponsorships and autographs. This model would allow for a fair and just system that benefits all. The fairness and justness of the situation is the big problem. The author writes the article with an obvious bias to persuade people to his view. Gregory is a senior writer for Time magazine. He does a great job of pointing out the obvious wrongdoings of the NCAA and universities. 


The Olympic Model, at least, is a pretty simple solution the problem at hand. The Huffington Post's Ken Reed wrote an article on this subject. The article, "Solution Regarding Paying College Athletes or Not is Simple," outlines a plausible system that would allow for players to benefit from their likeness in return of some sort of compensation. College athletes are considered "amateur" sports personnel as of right now. How can someone who creates millions of dollars in revenue and has his or her jersey sold in the campus bookstore be considered an "amateur?" This is absurd. The Olympic used to do the same to their athletes. No Olympic athlete was allowed to be compensated for their play or likeness for a long time. As of today, the rules have changed. All Olympians are allowed to earn money off of their name. People thought this would bring a downfall to the Olympics but, in fact, it is more popular than ever. Reed's article outlines the importance of the athletes to their universities and how easy it would be to compensate them for all they do. Dr. Ken Reed is the Sports Policy Director for the League of Fans. Along with that, he has a passion for sports and inequality in them. He has authored a book, taught classes at several institutions, and written columns for several newspapers. He writes this blurb in order to cast light on a problem that can and should be rectified.


The NCAA runs collegiate athletics. It is the governing and producing body. So in that sense if there is money to be made, and there is, they will be making it. Michael Wilbon's "College Athletes Deserve to be Paid" outlines this fact and that players need to get paid. In fact, the NCAA and the Bowl Championship Series, the NCAA's former football playoff system, just agreed to deals in 2011 with television networks. Turner/CBS Sports has offered to pay the NCAA ten point eight billion dollars over a time frame of thirteen years for the rights to the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, otherwise known as March Madness. Did I mention March Madness is only three weeks every year? Also, the BCS has agreed to a deal with ESPN to televise the bowl games for five hundred million dollars over the four years. Wilbon admits that he was against paying college athletes until these deals came out. He now refutes those statements. He pleads for the student athletes to get paid. He claims that the NCAA can easily afford to pay a small amount of their eleven point three billion to the players that make them that money. The Olympic model is even talked about. The players should be able to compensate on their name. What makes Michael Wilbon different from other writes and researchers is that he believes only major sport athletes should be paid: football, basketball, and occasionally baseball. We live in a capitalistic economy, one where people who are better at their profession are paid more. He argues this. Football, basketball, and baseball are the only huge revenue producers. Michael Wilbon is a decorated sports writer. He wrote for the Washington Post for decades until becoming nationally-renowned when he signed to ESPN to have his own TV show. His article supports a credible bias towards college athletes. He states his complete "180" to show emphasis that we should too understand the severity of these athletes' situation. Wilbon concludes with, "The players have become employees of the universities and conferences as much as students -- employees with no compensation, which not only violates common decency but perhaps even the law." The last line could not be anymore true. 

Whether or not college athletes should be paid is one of the biggest debates in America today. Critics of compensation say that it will ruin the sports and it will prohibit the athletes from actually caring about their school work. Advocates will say that their scholarships do not cover all their necessities and how it is absurd for them not to be paid the money they are earning. The argument is solely due the values of oneself. It all depends on your definition of fair and just. Some of the sources that I have found believe that it would not be outlandish to rearrange athletic department's budgets to help compensate the players, while others say this impossible. The others say the only way is for the Olympic Model to be put in place or that the NCAA must help. All sources agree that players should be able to make money off their likeness. Each of the three sources have slightly different perspectives, but I would agree with Michael Wilbon's the most. He understands the situation the best and his solution makes the most sense and is the simplest. After going through these sources and writing this essay I believe I may need to focus on why college football and basketball players should get paid.

 
