As of late, the issue of paying student athletes has been receiving a good amount of attention. This long standing debate has only intensified recently since more lucrative television deals have been introduced into the mixture. The extra revenue is presumed to have strengthened the case for paying the athletes, but those that support this ideology are still ignoring vital components of what it means to be a student athlete. If pay for play is adopted, college athletics would essentially follow a professional archetype subsequently losing all amateurism. This opens the doors to a slew of negative repercussions. As with anything, inequality is sure to rise. As one can see, monetary payment for student athletes is thoroughly impractical; instead more of an emphasis should be placed on providing a better education for the student athlete. 

It may appear that a plausible case can be argued for the payment of student athletes. The students have so much to balance on their plates when it comes to their daily workloads. The juggling of class work and studying is enough to wear any person down; this is without even bringing practices and games into consideration. That is a tough load for anyone to swallow, but is it truly enough to justify payment even when you know the terms associated with your contract (scholarship)? Many would agree so. According to Mathew Green, athletes can "can practice upwards of 60 hours a week." These numbers are backed up by Liz Entman, the public affairs officer at Vanderbilt. She says, "These students work far more than the allotted 20 hours per week set by the NCAA -- especially now that seasons are longer than ever." When the average working week is 40 hours, concern regarding these assumptions is understandable. Overuse of student "labor" is undeniably wrong. This can fall even more on the erroneous side since there is no payment. Dennis Johnson of The Sport Journal compares it to "indentured servitude." What is all this work for one might ask? The simple answer is a pretty good portion of the total revenue of the university. The college athletics field is a multi-billion dollar business. Vast amounts of wealth are riding on the backs of the success of athletic teams to produce the fan bases needed to support the appetites of colleges. This is where the presumed mistreatment of collegiate athletes come into place. In order to meet the demand, the athletes are relied upon heavily. 

Aside from working long hours, players have to witness the capitalization of their own image through jersey sales and video games. Sure these are a means for the players to get their names out there, but in no way can they profit from any of the aforementioned mediums. Jerseys are the identity of that particular player in their respective sport. Many times fans do not even recognize a name, but recognize a number instantly. Many argue this should be illegal as this is fundamentally identity theft. This same principle serves likewise for video games. It seems to be tolerable for colleges to profit, but felonious if a student received any yield. Just look at the Johnny Manziel jersey scandal. Manziel allegedly sold an autographed football, and was nearly thrown off the team. The point is, many believe the double standards imbedded in the rules of the NCAA are preposterous. How could someone else selling your image for profit and leaving you without a cent make sense, but a player cannot receive a dime from selling his/her own likeness? It appears to be completely backwards. 

Adding to the revenue problems are the gigantic television contracts that are constantly being negotiated. As of recently, the NCAA agreed to a $10.8 billion contract for its ever so popular basketball tournament, March Madness. This is not even including the additional $1 billion produced by ads during that time. What is this money used for? One landing spot is the universities "personal" fund. This is basically the advertisement and building funds for the college. It is vital that colleges have a steady flow of fresh students to keep business afloat, so attracting new students is integral for the success of the institution. New facilities go along with advertisement since they also attract more students to the campus. They also use a large chunk of the allotted money to fund not only the individual sports program that "earned" it but the entire sports program as a collective. As we all know, a large audience is not summoned to every sport, so it is critical that the revenue produced by the most popular are enough to cover the expenses of the less sought after options. According to Jason Breslow, this is the NCAA's main defense against pay for play stating that, "Its practice of profiting from players  ...  such as men's basketball, are returned to the system to help fund less visible sports." Travel fare, meals, training, medical attention, and equipment need to be accounted for too. The salaries of staff need to be considered; appointed staff can seem like an endless list of name. A chunk of the revenue settles in the pockets of the head coaches. It is not uncommon to see multi-million dollar contracts for these coaches at elite programs scattered across the nation. The logical question that arises is what the athletes receive. They make a lot of the things listed above possible, yet they are left out of receiving reimbursement for their time and effort. How can the NCAA deem the practice of players garnering profits unruly? 

The reason these rules exist is to avoid the overall loss of amateurism that would ensue from the opposite. "The concept of amateurism at American universities ...  started with the creation of the NCAA in 1906" (Gilleran). With the loss of that main idea, colleges would actually transform into employers, and the student athletes would become its employees. If this policy is adopted, the state of college athletics would take a sharp turn for the worse. The level of competition would nose dive since the school with the most money would simply buy the best players. Conversely, players would only be in it for the money. School pride will become an antiquated philosophy pushed aside for the new, mercenary approach. Another glaring issue presented by supporting the payment of athletes is the actual amount that is paid. For any of these supporters, could a valid answer be given to any of the following questions: What is the right amount? What determines the amount? Would the use of contracts be implemented?  Where exactly would these funds come from? Would the amount received depend upon sport and/or its associated gender? Would individual performance matter or would everyone receive the same amount? If that was the case, then we would have clashing of egos. For example, football players would expect greater compensation than, let's just say, the swim team since they generate more revenue. Which way is really fair? Too many variables appear once we introduce money to the situation. These are difficult questions to answer; the NCAA rule committees already struggle with relatively mundane issues today. For example, the Division I Councils struggled to come to a consensus regarding the benign issue of satellite camps. These camps basically allow college coaches to travel long distances to work as visitors at camps held by other institutions. Much deliberation went into the decision to ban them. The only negative present were the complaints of coaches that felt the other coaches were snatching recruits from the local area. If this simple issue was a hassle to solve, imagine the potential discussions that will balloon from the pay to play argument.

 In Kieran McCauley's article College athletes shouldn't be paid, the argument is made that financial reimbursement of student athletes is not necessary for a bevy of different reasons. Before we can choose either side, we must answer the following question: what is the purpose of college in the first place? Simply put, "College is a place for people to obtain a degree and help jumpstart their "real world" career aspirations" (McCauley). The cost of vital networking for the future and a degree do not come free when "the average debt is $32,528" once the average student graduates (McCauley). We can agree that this is a large sum of money to have to pay back in the first place, let alone when you are fresh out of college with no job. Many wish they never had to deal with the burden. Student athletes should not quarrel with regards to receiving no payment due to the fact that they virtually pay nothing to attend since "athletic scholarships are their compensation" (McCauley). These scholarships cover everything from tuition to housing and books. The point that should be emphasized is that college is simply a venue to gain exposure for future job opportunities; so there is essentially no difference in a student who networks at formal events and a football player performing on television, in front of numerous scouts from the next level. There is no discernable difference between either of the situations so why should one receive extra benefits over the other. Keep this statement from Davis Malone in mind, "There's no reason to have them come play, get paid, and not take advantage of the academics. There is someone out there who got denied from the school the player plays for and would've paid to go to school and would've loved the chance to get educated."

This leads to another advantage to being an athlete on campuses, they are treated as celebrities. As such, they get away with more deviant behavior even though they are seemingly held to a "higher" standard. Almost anything less than a felony can be avoided by an athlete if a public apology is presented. The "leashes" of star players are even longer. The ideal example of this at work is former Florida State quarterback Jameis Winston. He was the definition of a trouble maker. It seemed as if he was on the news all of the time for another one of his antics. First was the BB gun incident; where he was reportedly shooting squirrels around campus. Then came two incidents where he was accused of shoplifting. Jameis entered a restaurant, ordered water but filled the cup with soda which is technically stealing. Later, he actually stole crab legs from a local Publix in Florida. The last incident he was involved in was the shouting of obscenities while atop a lunch room table. Each episode of misbehavior resulted in a generic public apology; the most severe punishment he faced was community service and suspension from athletic activities for a diminutive amount of time. If Winston was not an all American athlete, he would most likely been asked to leave the university. Not because the infractions were severe, but because he was a continuous offender that did not appear to change.

The fact that education takes a backseat when discussing "student" athletes proves learning is no longer seen as a priority, entertainment is. Society, as a whole, relishes the glory of the image behind an athlete, but completely ignores the purpose they came to the university for. That purpose is to open the doors of opportunity so that one can make a sustainably fertile career that supports their individual goals and ambitions. It is absurd to pay athletes when, "Colleges already provide student-athletes with an invaluable benefit ...  this benefit comes in the form of a college degree, which gives students opportunities in the job market that they would otherwise not have had." (Meshefejian). Also, "Their connection with the university - and the recognition they receive for playing sports - will aid them in the business world for the rest of their lives." For many, that career could indicate a future in a professional sport, and I am not dispelling these aspirations, but the statistics speak for themselves. The odds are heavily stacked against them. "Less than 2% of college football players end up in the NFL." Unless you are the elite of the elite, focus should be placed on one's future. That roughly translates to a useful degree. It is important to highlight the term "useful." All too often, universities place the players' value on the field above what is best for them. Some student athletes are enrolled in the most basic classes just to remain eligible to participate. In some cases, the classes are not even genuine. A recent scandal involving the University of North Carolina exposed the ill practices utilized by various institutions across the nation. To ensure the full participation of its best athletes, UNC manufactured fraudulent classes that boosted GPAs allowing full eligibility of the student. The school was doing a huge disservice to the students that were not on the professional path and had not truly earned their degrees. They were placed at an immediate disadvantage because "98 percent of student-athletes will have to use their degree, despite not learning the material to the same extent their non-athlete colleagues did" (Benedykciuk).  A lot of income is produced by sports, but universities need to look past the dollar signs and actually begin caring for the wellbeing of its student athletes' education. Colleges need to improve the quality of the teachings received by athletes. Graduation rates reflect the problem as well. According to the article presented by USA today, "The University of South Carolina  ... . Graduated about 67% of its students overall. But football players? The rate drops to 47%, among the worst of the year's Top 10 teams. And African-American football players? Just 41% graduate."  More time should be allotted for educational purposes to allow for more in depth study of the subjects being taken. For one, the athlete is less receptive to learning anything sports related; this translates directly to classroom studies as well. Fatigue from being over worked is detrimental to an acceptable level of performance athletically and academically. The public needs to look past the entertainment value and demand that universities place the needs of the players (primarily education) higher on its list of priorities. Scholarships for athletics are supposed to be an alternative means of obtaining a quality education for those unable to afford it any other way. It seems dishonest and hypocritical for colleges to promise great educational opportunities for the athletes but fall short on these assurances. Accountability needs to be addressed and fans should strive to make it possible since they should want what is best for the kids anyway. If the public sought to change this, it definitely would become a priority to fix, but currently the choice to ignore the issues seems to be the common trend. Until the public realizes they are rallying for an unserviceable outcome (paying athletes), conditions will remain unchanged.     

