Before even diving into this highly debated topic, a quote by Jay Bilas answers everything about this problem when he says, "When you ask the question of 'Should college athletes get paid?' it sounds like a mandate. For me it's always been why would you prohibit it?" (Bilas). The back and forth argument of whether or not to pay Division I college athletes has been going on every since people realized that the alleged 'nonprofit' organization, the NCAA, is not as nonprofit as people once thought. It is no secret anymore that the NCAA is a multibillion-dollar organization and college sports might start being about more than just the love of the game. This money does not just appear out of thin air however. The thousands of Division I athletes who compete every game for our entertainment and earn the lucrative TV contracts that make everyone working for the NCAA rich are the ones who fund this money train, but they don't even see a penny of it. In any other business this would scream 'lawsuit' before one could blink an eye, but because of the amateur status placed on the players by the NCAA they are not allowed to receive pay for their play. This makes people call into question the word 'amateur' altogether, which, according to dictionary.com is, "a person who engages in a study, sport or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons", which obviously doesn't describe these athletes who are trying to one day be millionaires at their craft (Dictionary.com). This is why I'm for paying the Division I college athletes. Division One college athletes should be compensated for what they do because they are athletes first and students second.

The freedom of choice is a freedom founded deep and strong in the roots of this great country. It leads people to believe no one can ever make anyone say or do anything they do not want to do. This however is not true for college sports. Division I college athletes are denied freedom of choice in so many situations. Other students at these universities are free to sell and market things they work for and receive profit for, but, sadly, this does not apply to athletes. It begins long before the first pitch is ever thrown, the first pass is ever caught or the first basket is ever made too. It begins with the paperwork every athlete must fill out and sign before any scholarship is upheld or season begins and according to "No Control over their Rights of Publicity: College Athletes Left Sitting the Bench", by Kristine Mueller, "Student-athletes have virtually no control over the commercial use of their identities ... Ultimately, the student-athletes sign over their rights of publicity, in a sense, to the universities"(Mueller 72). This completely robs the players of any opportunity to profit off any success that they achieve in their years of playing college sports. This had led to videogame companies like EA Sports and multiple athletic wear companies, including Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, and others, making millions off these free labor machines with only the universities seeing any profit from it. 

A players likeliness is not the only way the NCAA robs its athletes of freedom of choice and otherwise proves that Division I athletes are athletes first and students second. The rules in place that limit when a player can turn professional and what classes each athlete is allowed to take are also reasons why this is true. Many feel the rules in place now leave the student athlete in a system, as John Brill describes it in his article, "Some writers, like Stanley Eitzen, have even compared the system to indentured servitude or a 'plantation system'"(Brill 1). The rules in place right now say that a player needs to be 19 in order to enter the NBA and for the NFL a player needs to have been in college for 3 years. According to John Brill, " ... in 2005 a draft ready football player is worth $495,000 and a draft ready basketball player is worth over $1.4 million to the NCAA respectively. This means that the scholarship value that player is receiving in return for play is nowhere near the players actual value"(Brill 2). This further proves how if the NCAA wants to regulate when players can turn professional they need to compensate them for their respected values or just allow each player to turn professional when he pleases. 

When it comes to classes, these athletes once again are restricted in their choice selection. From lifting, film sessions, practices, traveling, games and everything else required, Division I athletes are forced to base their academic schedule around their sports schedule. This alone just does not make sense when people try to argue these athletes are in college for school first. Many athletes are restricted on which major to take, usually being swayed to easier majors by their coaches who know that that school schedule will not interfere with the sports schedule. According to Kenneth Cooper's article, "'Athletes don't have free choice of what major they take if the class conflicts with practice schedules', Amy McCormick says. 'That's one fact that flies in the face of that idea they're primarily students and secondarily athletes'"(Cooper). Her quote shows that the term 'student-athlete' is not exactly as it seems.

The amount of revenue that they bring into their respected universities is the next reason why college athletes are athletes first and students second. Millions upon millions of dollars are pumped into universities across the campus via the hard work, sweat and determination of young 18 to 22 year old athletes who themselves receive none of the wealth. When one says it like that it sounds like a slave system or a charity service. Louis Barbash describes it in his article as, "Like many a monopoly or oligopoly before it --  like Standard Oil a century ago, like the Detroit Big Three, like IBM, like Polaroid --  the central tenants of the NCAA's dominance, the unpaid student-athlete, has been undermined"(Barbash 1), which shows like other fallen companies before it, the NCAA needs to reevaluate the way it operates and compensates it workers, the athletes, before them themselves completely implode. The NCAA clings to the amateur status idea as the reason why athletes cannot be paid and if they did pay them they argue it would ruin the spirit of the college game. Not many others outside the NCAA offices really seem to be that attached to the idea of not paying these athletes who bring in so much however. According to author Dave Zirin, "The fact that the NCAA is so adamantly insisting on enforcing a rule to prevent anyone from getting paid I think is a good sign if the rule weren't there, they would", which shows how absurd this rule is. 

The NCAA, "had revenue of nearly $1 billion during it 2014 fiscal year"(Berkowitz 1). This helps shows they have the money to compensate these players for their net worth in the market. These student athletes have made coaches, athletic directors and higher up members in the NCAA millionaires so its time they start seeing some compensation for that. To stay relevant with the time of year, lets focus on March Madness for this example. For a three-week period, the college basketball world is on full display with millions across the globe watching one of the craziest, drama filled tournaments in sports. These young men and women work all year, travel all over the country and sacrifice their studies for the chance to win it all, which as one could guess brings in a lot of revenue to the NCAA. According to John Brill, "The three weeks of the NCAA Basketball Tournament, known as 'March Madness', generates over $770 million in TV rights deals alone. The only reasons why these exist are the athletes themselves, and they are reaping none of the benefits from these windfalls"(Brill 3). This helps show the injustice that is in place in this NCAA system right now. If this were any other business it would be blasphemous to accept the system that society has allowed the NCAA to keep all these years. The days of athletic directors like, " ... Vanderbilt's David Williams, who earns more than $3.2 million last year", should be long over and the athlete should finally start receiving the compensation that they truly deserve (Chavez 2). 

The final reason why college athletes are athletes first and students second if that playing Division I sports is an equivalent, if not greater, workload than a normal nine to five job. From the 5:30am wake ups all the way to the 12pm film sessions there is no joking around when it comes to the day-to-day schedule of a Division I college athletes. Whether it's lifting, class or practice, every minute of every day is filled with an activity to preform, which leaves little free time for friends and other activities. Even when they maybe get the chance to do something, the 24 and 48 hours rules stop athletes from attending the same parties and bars normal college students frequent most nights out of the week. According to Chris Isodore of CNN at Northwestern University, "Take football players' orientation week ... Up until the season starts, the workload trails off to 50 to 60 hours a week. That eases to 40 to 50 hours a week once the season, and classes, begin ... "(Isodore 1). Imagine having that schedule for a normal job? I know I would be asking for a lot of overtime and pay raises and that's just Northwestern, a university that values its academics. Imagine the schedule for a college athlete at a school that may value its football a lot more than its studies, like an Alabama; the hours those athletes put in are beyond insane.

One might say, 'well that's only in season, once the season ends they have no commitment'. Well for those people, they must not know about all the off season lifting and training schedules and the spring game schedules that many teams keep to make sure the athletes are in mid season form all year long. Once again take Northwestern's offseason schedule, which is described by Chris Isodore as, "After the season ends, things let up ... there's 12 to 15 hours a week of January weight training, 15 to 20 hours a week preparing for spring football practice, and then 20 to 25 hours a week for spring and summer practice". This is more time commitment than most students' jobs during the school year or over the summer. These students kill themselves, in a sense, day in and day out to put on a show for everyone that decides to attend the game or tune in around the world. The preparation that each and every athlete puts in is comparable, if not the same, to the preparation of athletes at the professional level who receive millions to show up to work everyday. We live in a society where a guy who sits at a desk all day and does nothing can make millions, while a kid who goes out and works his tail off every day for the entertainment of everyone receives only a pat on the back and a scholarship to classes that he or she probably won't have enough time to attend anyway. John Brill says it best when he says, "Big-time basketball and being seriously engaged in academics were not compatible"(Brill 2). This shows that for college athletes, athletics is their number one job, not their academics.

This argument is not a one-way street however. The opposition is strong and truly feels that their claims are the right ones. I intend on taking a couple of their arguments and explaining why there are not as strong as they would think. First off, many people who support the idea of not paying college athletes believe as Kieran McCauley does when he says, "If players are that good and feel they deserve to be paid, they can make it to the professionals"(McCauley 2). Well, as that is true that some do receive millions a few years after college, it is far from given that it will happen. Many athletes never make it to the professional long enough to make these millions, because they fizzle out and cannot compete on that level, they get caught up in a different occupation or, the big one, they get hurt before they turn pro. This happens way too often; promising players getting hurt in their last season of college and forever losing their chance to achieve their dream of turning pro. A former Alabama football star by the name of Tyrone Prothro is a perfect example of this. Tyrone is an Alabama legend, his signature moment, 'The Catch', is immortalized in Alabama football history. Unfortunately, with NFL dreams on his mind, Tyrone broke his leg in a 2005 game for the Crimson Tide and would never play the game of football again. Travis Clay of Fox News wrote a story on the aftermath of this tragic event saying, "Former Alabama football player Tyrone Prothro took the stand Wednesday and told the story of the leg injury that ended his football career. One moment Prothro was destined for a career in the NFL, the next he was finished playing football forever"(Clay 3). The opposition's argument that these athletes can just go professional if they are good enough is not true because a lot of it is being lucky enough to miss all the obstacles that could hold a player back, like injury, even if they are good enough. 

The next argument I'd like to look is the one that people say if these athletes are allowed to make the jump straight for high school that there will be a talent drain in the NCAA. It definitely is true that if the best players in high school are allowed to make the jump straight to the pros then the NCAA will lose out on the best talent, but the fact of the matter is that it just does not happen that often. The fact kids straight out of high school are not physically or mentally ready to play with grown men. Many of them are not ready to give up the stardom that they would have around their respected campuses if they did choose to attend college. According to John Brill, "In the decade between 1995 and 2005, only 29 players went to the NBA from high school. That's an average of less than four players per year, and should not be considered a drain on the system"(Brill). This shows that in no way does allowing players the option of going straight to the professionals cause a talent-drain in the NCAA at all. These NCAA sports are a team game and as long as these kids are competing at their highest level night in and night out the level of competition will not slip even if the best one or two players do go straight to the professionals every year.

Division I athletes deserve their fair market value compensation because they truly are athletes first and students second. These athletes practice their craft 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Many do believe that they should be paid but just don't know how to go about it. The way I would go about setting up this system of compensation would be like the one Dave Zirin suggests in his article when he says, "I think the simplest system is almost no system at all. Or if you insist on having some rules, have them at the conference level"(Zirin 2). He believes the most effective system is a system where there are no spending rules in place and each school is free to pay as much as it feels a player is worth. If rules were needed, however, having spending rules at the conference level would make the most sense. Different sports are more important to different conferences so in these conferences those sports can be valued higher than others. Another good suggestion for a solution to this problem comes from Linda Chavez who suggests that, " ...  schools could establish funds that players could later draw on when their injuries come back to bite them"(Chavez 2). This would be very beneficial to the players who risk their bodies every game to know that their would be a system of compensation when all the years of hard work for their universities comes back to bite them. Whatever the solution is that the NCAA decides upon to answer to this problem the new system will be much better than the one that is in place now. As John Brill says, "The point is that players should get something in return for their time, because most rational fans know that basketball and football players are not normal students"(Brill 5). The time for change in the NCAA is now and its up to them to answer the bell. Will they, as the late, great Jim Valvano always said, "survive and advance" and adopt a system where athletes receive their fair pay, or will they crumble with their ancient system, afraid of change, like many organizations before them? Only time will tell.

