It seems wrong to build a billion-dollar enterprise on the backs of unpaid athletes, yet the NCAA continues to be one of the most popular and highly worshipped organizations of all time.  As the NCAA holds education and a chance to play competitive sports over college athletes' heads, the organization has established a kind of power that no one is willing to stray from.  Despite the love of college sports across America, many people are still blind to the way the NCAA undermines college athletes.  Although it has recently been brought to light by recent lawsuits and court cases, the NCAA is still adamant that college athletes should not be paid.  The multilevel issue includes aspects of morality, practicality and feasibility that are still being weighed by the board of the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

One of the greatest areas of concern with the current NCAA model is that they haven't been living up to many of their claims lately.  According the the NCAA, the purpose of the organization is to promote higher level play while also giving athletes a chance to prosper in an advanced academic environment.  However, corruption in the system is leading to college athletes being cheated out of fair earnings, while they are also getting cheated out of a genuine college education.  These problems are looking to be solved many including the academic institutions and the athletes themselves.  

The modern day commercial model that the NCAA is starting to replicate is raising question of whether or not it would be plausible to pay college athletes.  If a new and efficient system is put in place, reforms in the organization could benefit both the universities and the players, as well as the NCAA.  Therefore, athletes should be allowed to be offered payment for the use of their image and should not be punished for any efforts to prosper from their own name and or image.  Dually, athletes need to be held responsible for their academic status and exceptions should not be made in order to enhance an athletes' eligibility.  The current NCAA system is at fault and these revisions in the rules and regulations are necessary in order for the organization and college sports to keep progressing.  

By rules of the NCAA, collegiate athletes are not allowed to receive any compensation beyond tuition and may not "receive any money, transportation or other benefits from an agent" or "use [their] athletics skill for pay in any form in that sport" (NCAA Regulations).  Amongst other rules and regulations set forth by the NCAA, these few have been the most controversial and have a number of people proposing changes to the way NCAA athletes might be used to market themselves, their university, and the NCAA as a whole.  

Other regulations in the NCAA contract embody the academic responsibility of the student athlete in respect to their education.  The NCAA requires a student athlete to maintain a certain grade point average, determined by the university, to be eligible to practice and participate in their sport.  These rules are obviously less controversial because it is expected for universities to have an educational model.  It's less of an expectation, however, for a university to incorporate a business model in which the athletes may be considered employees.  

The solutions for this issue lie in the opposition of these two points.  While college athletics are known for providing higher level play in sports and higher level education, at what cost must we sacrifice either of the two to make NCAA athletes feel like they aren't being controlled altogether by the NCAA?  The simple truth of the matter is, education is always there to fall back on, and for most students, it's the only thing to set them apart from others in the professional world.  The current NCAA system doesn't truly represent a professional model, but it also doesn't truly represent am educational model in the most honest terms.  A revamping of the system would look to mend these flaws.           

The 2009 O'Bannon v. NCAA case set a precedent for all student athletes after the former UCLA basketball player sued the NCAA for using his image and not compensating him for the profit.  Around the same time, former quarter back at Arizona State and Nebraska, Sam Keller, sued EA Sports for producing the NCAA football video game and using his image without permission (Lawyers.com).  In both cases, the NCAA lost, having to repay $20 million to the athletes they previous used in their video game and creating a stipend cap for NCAA athletes.  Now, NCAA athletes may receive a stipend from the university trust fund in addition to any scholarships or financial aid the university may offer.  This trust fund includes money made from mostly football and basketball programs.

In simpler terms, the O'Bannon case did set limits on the compensation student athletes could receive, acting as a huge win for all athletes looking for fair representation.  However, the NCAA still does not want to budge in getting rid of their altogether amateur model.  "Anti-trust expert" and law professor, Michael A. Carrier, says " ... for the NCAA, this is a huge loss because for the first time you have a court looking at its prized defenses, things like amateurism and competitive balance, and saying this is not persuasive" (Berkowitz).  From the view of the professionals, the players, and much of the general public, now is a better time than ever to start treating student athletes more like paid athletes.  The distinguishable gap between non-profit and commercial is becoming smaller and smaller in regards to the NCAA and this is what will eventually prompt the shift.  With the precedents set by these past legal cases, NCAA is becoming an illegitimate higher power and paying players is becoming a more reasonable concept.  

The board of the NCAA heavily relies on the argument of practicality and ethics in their decision to keep athletes unpaid.  At first, the main and simple defense of the NCAA was the amateur model.  While the NCAA still uses "amateurism" in their everyday vocabulary to deny players compensation, it has become clear that this word, in this case, is outdated.  

As a whole, the NCAA generates billions of dollars each year.  In fact, the NCAA puts their financial statement on their website for the general public to see.  Anyone can search the NCAA on the internet and find that in the years 2014 and 2015, the total revenues added up to just shy of a billion dollars.  The generation of this much money is not traditionally generated from any "amateur" organization, therefore it becomes unreasonable to demand the athletes to obey the rules under an amateur model.  Although the typical business model is not the NCAA's idea of an efficient or effective system, the timeliness of this issue is making it very clear that some kind of changes need to be made for both parties to be accommodated.  

In fact, in light of the recent speculation on this topic, economists have studied the ways in which the NCAA may be misusing their revenues.  Economics researcher and professor Lawrence M. Kahn says, "Most economists who have studied the NCAA view it as a cartel that attempts to produce rents, both by limiting payments for inputs such as player compensation and by limiting output" (Kahn).  In other words, athletes making profits for the university and NCAA that aren't allowed to be compensated for their efforts is basically everything we generally stand against, both morally and ethically.  The funds are not being distributed correctly economically, and that is creating a pull between athletes and the NCAA.

Taking a closer look at the distribution of total net income and expenses of universities individually, and compiled as conferences, could be something beneficial to finding a compromise to pay college athletes.  Businessofcollegesports.com published an article several years ago breaking down the financial progress of universities per conference.  The revenues of each athletics department is rough, yet provides insight into where the funds are being allocated and just how much money the universities are able to make on their own. 

The Net-Income of all NCAA conference athletic departments are usually never less than $0 and are often upwards of billions of dollars.  When totaled up, the expenses of paying coaches, recruiting, operations, and student aid, do not usually hurt the athletic programs of major NCAA conferences (Jessop).  This being said, it is not unreasonable to propose a way for universities to pay the athletes from the athletics department's net revenues.  For example, in 2010 UCLA revenues and expenses break even at $66 million a piece, while Oregon makes $85 million and spends $69 million, therefore gaining a net income of about $16 million for their athletic department.  In this particular year, UCLA's football record was just above 500, while Oregon had a nearly perfect season.  Higher performance of a team is almost always able to create more revenue.  This way, stipends or compensation could be based off the income of the athletic department.  The sports that do not create the same amount of revenue from these sports may still be able to receive their stipend from the trust fund, a system that is being adopted rapidly already by many universities.

Implementing this system would maintain the competitiveness of college athletics, and would not change the hierarchy of Division I, II, and III schools.  The more schools with more talented players would ideally earn more money, therefore being able to pay them more as well.  This system doesn't even stray far from the system that is being used today.  The first step in implementing this system is to take into consideration the ways in which college athletes would face a transition from "amateur" to a kind of employee of the university.  

Although this is one of the main concerns with paying college athletes, it's not entirely difficult to make this transition an easy one.  As long as the athletes are students at the university and have an academic standard to maintain their eligibility, the NCAA's desire of an educational system is still being upheld.  The athletes get to play sports and get an opportunity to receive education.  With a more commercial model, players would also be allowed compensation and perhaps some of the benefits that come with being an employee of a business.  Insurance and coverage is something to consider, although many athletes are already covered under the universities in case of injury or damages.  Because the commerciality of the NCAA is so important in the world of sports, maintaining the commercial model should be priority in order to keep an influx of profits and revenue.  If the NCAA wants to keep a distinction between professional and college, and still use education as a defense, "the NCAA needs to curb the commercial influences placed within its field of athletic competition and restrict its own commercial activity by placing limits on itself" (Rosenthal).

Realistically, limiting commercial activity would be a financial burden for the NCAA.  Ruling out commercial activity would mean that the NCAA couldn't sell March Madness broadcasting rights for the multi-million dollars that it usually does, or that a super fan couldn't buy a college football jersey at their local retail store. Teams and coaches would have to terminate all apparel contracts.  The possibility of the NCAA giving up all commercial rights to make college sports completely and entirely amateur is highly unlikely and not practical.   

Additionally, the NCAA holds on tight to the preservation of the educational model of the association.  The idea has always been that a student can play sports in college while they are simultaneously offered an education.  But another aspect to be considered is realistically looking at the academic opportunity of an athlete versus that of a regular college student. 

In a documentary entitled Schooled: The Price of College Sports made in 2013, a number of professional and college athletes tell stories about their NCAA experiences.  Many of them speculate not having enough money in college, and doing what they could to pay for the expenses of college, despite receiving free tuition to play sports.  However, one of the most compelling parts of the movie comes when former University of Maryland football player, Dominique Foxworth comments on the education system in regards to the NCAA.  The NCAA has an academic standard that college athletes need to be able to meet.  The problem with this though, is that there is often a challenge to get the athletes to meet this eligibility.  "It's not about educating them ...  when they leave school, they may have a degree, but they don't have an education" (Waldron).  The flaw in the NCAA system is that they claim to be centered around education, yet a lot of the time, students are admitted to a university that they couldn't normally get into solely because of their athletic ability.  While this sets them apart from other students at the university, it also sets them back in terms of gaining an education.  The main point of the documentary is to provide rights and voices to the college athletes experiencing this, especially the players of extremely high grossing sports, like men's football and basketball (Waldron).           

The NCAA sees sports as a priority over education, which leads us to ask the question, what does this say about the purpose of the organization?  If they want to promote higher level play and put them on a level more similar to that of professionals it seems reasonable to pay them.  If they want to promote the importance of education they should actually actively place importance one education.  In a perfect world, the NCAA really does just want athletes to have the opportunity to prosper in an educational environment.  However, the athletes' talent is what draws in the money and the profits and that will never change.  Now, the issue has become real and it is widely known that "the reality of collegiate athletics is inconsistent with the amateurism ideal advanced by the NCAA" (Hurst).  Our current system being implemented in the NCAA is raising awareness for a reason, and it is because student athletes feel oppressed by their limited rights and freedom under their NCAA contracts.  To eliminate this problem, the NCAA needs to find a compromise that offers up funds to the players.

The educational model that the NCAA is trying to maintain can still remain, however, aspects of a business model mixed with the current and growing commercial model would allow the NCAA to grant proper rights to its athletes.  In past court cases like the Ed O'Bannon case and the Sam Keller case, athletes have already started to gain rights for college athletes and create awareness around the nation that the NCAA is misusing their power in college athletics.  As for the academic standard held by the NCAA, regulations need to be more strictly enforced to insure that importance is truly being place on the education of athletes.

  The practicality of reforming the NCAA contract is becoming more realistic as these precedents are being set.  Today, athletes are making big strides towards a complete reform of the NCAA.  It is only just that the system benefits athletes and repays them for the profits they bring into college sports. In the future, college athletes should not be looked at as money makers and should be paid for their efforts to make their sport prosper at their universities.  The NCAA needs to be held accountable for the claims that they make, which means they need to treat their athletes fairly and actually make sure that student athletes have that education to fall back on.  A new revision of the NCAA rules and regulations that focuses heavily on the expectations of academic institutions and the fair treatment of it's college players would be one giant stride forward in the world of college sports.  The revision would equally look to benefit the desires and needs of athlete's and their families in regards to their future and the validity of their institutional education.    

