Three years ago,  Texas A&M quarterback, Johnny Manziel was suspended from playing in college football due to a NCAA rule violation. Manziel was paid $7,500 for signing over 300 mini replica football helmets. In professional sports it is perfectly fine for athletes to sell their autographs but in college that is against the rules.The NCAA allows players to give out autographs to fans but as soon as they try to make money off of those autographs, the NCAA severely punishes them. It doesn't have to be autographs, players can get in trouble for selling jerseys, or taking money from agents. It is against the rules for college athletes to accept money from outside sources because NCAA athletes subject themselves to the rules of the NCAA in exchange for their athletic scholarship and selling personal merchandise is against those rules.

Situations similar to Johnny Manziel's occur often in college sports and have for many years. A few years before Jonny Manziel's incident, Reggie Bush, a current NFL running back, took thousands of dollars from an outside agent while playing at the University of Southern California. Reggie Bush, just like Johnny Manziel, was found guilty for this situation after he left college and the NCAA still found a way to punish him. They made him return the Heisman Trophy he won in 2005. The number of examples similar to these are endless and players still seek ways to make money by breaking the rules after knowing what has happened to previous athletes that have done the same thing. Most college athletes don't have time for a job, Division 1 sports require a tremendous amount of time and dedication which leaves little time for other activities. Also, many come from underprivileged families and their families are unable to provide them with spending money , so if they are not receiving money they will do whatever they need to in order to make money. 

Besides from specific athletes being punished entire teams face harsh punishments from the NCAA. In 1995 the University of Miami football team was banned from playing in their bowl games because players were taking money from a booster named Nevin Shapiro (ESPN News Services). After a whole year of hard work preparing for the season it was all thrown away because the players were taking money, gifts, etc. from some football booster. It is the players fault that they broke the rules but what can someone expect. If a man is offering to pay them money and bring them to clubs, and buy them drinks and these players have no money of their own then they are going to accept it. Even if players are paid they might still seek illegal ways to make money but many players won't because they will not have the need to. The only reason players do things like this is because they need money and someone gives them a way to earn some .Every year there are teams, players, and coaches being punished/ suspended. Most of these sanctions could be avoided if players received a salary, and it would help make college sports less corrupt and controversial. 

When rules are broken there needs to be punishment but why does the NCAA enforce such rules that limit players from making money off of themselves? The NCAA allows themselves to make money off of these athletes along with many other companies but as soon as the athlete attempts to make money of of  himself/herself they are punished for it. "See, the NCAA has very clear rules: Everybody and their gastroenterologists can make money off Johnny Manziel except Manziel himself. The pursuit of wealth is available to every person enrolled at Texas A&M except student-athletes. The whiz pianist, the science prodigy, even the hopeful sportswriter." (Reilly.). Celebrities that have gone to college have been able to make money off of themselves, their image/ likeness, etc. and it is perfectly legal. "two superstar collegians who took way more cash for autographs in school. Millions, in fact. They got paid for slapping their names on clothes, movies, even toothbrushes. They made huge money for appearances, speeches and photo sessions while in college" (Reilly). The two "collegians" he is referring to is Mary- Kate and Ashley Olsen. These two celebrities attended NYU and while at school made millions of dollars from clothing deals, makeup, photoshoots, and other things of that nature. If these two girls can make money off themselves why can't student athletes? It is as if the NCAA doesn't want to see their athletes have any type of financial success. 

Players have  reported being hungry and malnourished while participating in a Division 1 sport, "I don't feel student-athletes should get hundreds of thousands of dollars, but like I said, there are hungry nights that I go to bed and I'm starving," (Ganim). Division 1 basketball players,  and all other student- athletes, have to struggle through a rigorous schedule of games for a couple of months and intense practices throughout the whole year. Their bodies need to be provided the right amount of fuel and rest in order to stay healthy and perform at the top level. If players are going to bed hungry then there is something extremely wrong with how they are being treated and are certainly not receiving the correct nutrition and care that they need. "He says he's going to bed hungry at a time when millions of dollars are being made off of him. It's obscene," Lesser 
said. "This isn't a Connecticut problem. This is an NCAA problem" (Ganim). The NCAA makes millions of dollars each year from jersey sales and the players do not see a dime from the sale profits. The players are the reason why the jerseys are selling, "When you see your jersey getting sold -- it may not have your last name on it -- but when you see your jersey getting sold and things like that, you feel like you want something in return." (Ganim). This quote comes from UCON basketball player Shabazz Napier but many other people share the same viewpoint as him. People are buying his jersey, so why shouldn't he receive the income from it? The NCAA can make millions of dollars off of one player and that player might not even have enough money to take a girl on a date or buy himself a meal at a restaurant. Players do not need huge contracts, it's also not feasible to give them bug contracts, but there needs to be a system where players can have spending money for necessities like food because it's hard to imagine how it feels when people are making a lot of money off of a certain athlete and they can't afford a meal.

The most prominent reason college athletes break the rules is because they need money. If players were receiving money or  had all the necessities they need then they would have no motivation to seek alternative ways to make money,  "It would give the most conflicted of those student-athletes more reasons to put their hands back in their pockets."(Haugh).  "It" is referring to paying the athletes and David Haugh is right, if these players had money of their own then they would not be as enticed to break the rules in order to have money to support themselves.The athletes do not need to be making nearly as much as the professionals of their sport but just a small base salary will help dramatically, "Offering modest, monthly payments at least might start improving the process."(Haugh).  Paying student athletes a large amount of money might lead to some problems like spending a lot of it on irresponsible things but if they received a monthly salary,  the players would be more likely to budget their money and not blow it all in one sitting and which could lead them to getting in trouble. It could also help the players learn how to handle money for later in their life so they do not go broke. Only 1.2% of men's basketball players make it to the NBA and only .9% of women basketball players make it to be a professional. That means that after graduating college or leaving to pursue a professional career and failing, college athletes end up being regular day people and have to support themselves. If most of a student athlete's time is spent dealing with their sport then they did not have any time for a part-time job in order to earn money. After they graduate they may not have any money to their name and could severely suffer financially after school. They could have spent countless hours and made numerous sacrifices to play sports in college without anything to show for it when it's over .Having money that they accumulated in college will help them stay on their feet when looking for jobs and trying to start a career. 

Currently the NCAA does not allow their athletes to be paid because they view free education, housing, meals, etc. as sufficient payment for their services in the sport they play. Providing an education is what the NCAA thinks is the best payment for these kids, "Opponents counter that college athletes already receive compensation in the form of athletic scholarships that defray the costs of tuition and fees, room and board, and textbooks." (Mondello). Higher ed-ucation is definitely a novelty that not everyone is lucky enough to receive, but most of Division 1 athletes don't choose what school to go to based on their education programs. For the most part, they only care about their sport and if  their team can achieve success. If an athlete isn't there to receive an education, then they should not be rewarded with an education. If a player wants to take education as a repercussion for their dedication then they should be able to do so. However if a player doesn't they should be able to take payment as an option but if that were the case they would be treated differently then a student athlete. Since they don't want to attend school they would not be receiving housing, meal swipes, etc since they wouldn't be seeking a degree fro that university.If the NCAA made an option where athletes do not have to go to class and can just receive payment for their play then most NCAA athletes would choose that over receiving an education. Also, many college athletes do not stay the whole 4 years at college, the education that they receive doesn't end up being useful because they still don't have a degree. Instead of giving an athlete scholarships they can be paid and scholarships can go towards regular students that view education as their number one priority.  

Each year the NCAA brings in an astonishing amount of revenue due to the sports games,merchandise, etc. The revenue brought in by the NCAA in 2011, which is the last time the revenue of the NCAA has been calculated, was $871.6 million (NCAA.org). Relating to the Johnny Manziel issue, "If the schools can earn millions, why can't "Johnny Heisman" take home thousands?" (Berri).  Although the individual schools are different than the NCAA, the more money the schools make the more money the NCAA will make.The NCAA is a non-profit organization that has accumulated billions of dollars over their entire existence. Non- profit organizations are tax free and all of there earnings are supposed to go towards improving their organization. They make all of this tax-free money so all of it should go back to the schools or funding to improve college athletics in general. If it's non-profit then nobody in the NCAA should be making large amounts of money off of the athletics. However, that is not the case. "The National Collegiate Athletic Association spent nearly $6-million to compensate 14 of its highest-ranking executives, according to federal tax documents recently made public." (Sander). The employees, or heads of a non- profit organization should not be making this much money. It's hypocritical, since they are a non profit organization most of their money should be spent on improving college athletics and the student-athlete experience. The executives of the NCAA shouldn't be using it to make million dollar bonuses. If the heads of the NCAA are taking some of the revenue to give themselves a nice paycheck and the student athletes are the ones who make the NCAA it's money it does not make sense as to why they do not get a share of the revenue. Johnny Manziel can't make a couple thousand off off his own autograph but Myles N. Brand, an executive for the NCAA, can make $1, 145, 880 in compensation after a year's work. Companies pay their workers because without them the company wouldn't exist and without the athletes there would be no NCAA so they should receive compensation for their work or at least there name that brings in so much money. 

If the NCAA used its money strictly for education services, because that is how they view their gift to the athletes, then players not receiving money would seem much less wrong. If nobody was making profit off of the athletes and the sport and the money used was strictly for education services around the United States then there would be nothing wrong with players receiving nothing but an education from their university. College athletics would truly be amateur and the games, jersey sales, etc. would help support education and funding for the University  .That's what a non-profit organization does, it gives the money it earns back to the cause they believe in. It does not use that money to give its employees million dollar bonuses. However, NCAA seems to be using their money on other things that are not nearly as important, "Recent television deals pay the NCAA and its colleges over $1 billion per year in brand new revenue. Most would expect that this tax-free revenue would be spent primarily on their educational missions, but historical spending patterns show it will be spent exclusively on mega-stadiums and salary increases for coaches and administrators." (Huma). If their mission is to strictly provide an education then they would not need to spend money on frivolous things, it would be only spent on libraries,books, and education tools. Many college coaches have received over $1 million dollars per year. If coaches can make millions of dollars each year then it should not be that difficult to give the players a salary for their play or allow them to make money off of themselves. IT seems as if everyone else involved with the NCAA is making money except for the athletes that provide the lifeblood for the NCAA. 

During the sports years of 2014-2015 the University of South Carolina brought in a total revenue of $98,619,479 (USA Today). This year they are expected to surpass $100,000,000 per year. There are approximately 560 student athletes at the university of South Carolina.To put these numbers in perspective,  if the revenue only went to the athletes then each athlete would be able to receive a salary of about 180,000 per year. An issue within the players being paid is whether or not certain players should be paid more than others, "Would the women's volleyball player at Penn State receive the same monthly stipend as the Heisman Trophy candidate at Michigan? If sports other than men's basketball and football account for merely 1 percent of the athletic department's revenues, do those players deserve money too?" (Haugh). Title IX states that there needs to be equal treatment between both sexes. this would most likely require equal payment of athletes because the argument that men shouldn't receive more than women or vice versa would happen.There will be other purchases the university needs to use some of the revenue towards but it is definitely feasible for athletes to be paid. None of the athletes need to be paid this much amount of money but any sufficient amount is more than enough for these athletes. Other options are also available on how each student can be paid, "However, payment could be based of the revenues that each team brings in. The teams that bring in the most money should be paid the most money. If being an athlete is the student's job then their pay should be based off of their accomplishments just like any other regular job." (Haugh). Players could be viewed as employees of their team/school and based off their performance be paid a certain salary. Just like in the professionals this could motivate the athletes to try their best because the better they perform, the greater their salary is. However, this could take away from the "amateur" aspect of college sports. If they are treated like employees, being paid by their performance, then college sports would be much different. Players wold have to be evaluated on their performance in games, practices, and how they carry themselves off of the field in order to determine payment. However, Title IX creates a huge problem with this. It would not work out because Title IX would not allow players to be treated differently. If this system was to work Title IX would have to be changed.

Besides the NCAA's yearly revenue argument there are other reasons why athletes should be paid. If athletes were to be paid it could increase the competition among other universities and colleges. Usually, the same teams seem to be in contention for the championship of their sport, "in college football from 1950 to 2005, just 10 schools held 45% of all the top-eight slots in the final Associated Press rankings ...  45% of all Final Four spots from 1950 to 2005 again went to just 10 schools". Statistically every year the same schools finish in the top of the rankings. The reason this occurs is due to the fact that the players want the best chance to win so they choose the schools that consistently win. If players are able to be paid then they might choose the school where they will get the most money opposed to choosing a school where they would have the best chance of winning.  Schools that would not normally get the top talent would acquire better athletes than usual which would increase the competition among all schools and the same teams 
every year will not finish at the top. If one school had more money to spend on paying their athletes after other expenses then they can recruit by telling athletes they have more money to allocate on them. While not all athletes will choose schools based on how much money they can receive, many kids definitely will. 

Along with these other issues there are health issues that occur from playing college sports. The greatest health factor comes from concussions in college football. Every game players receive heavy blows throughout their whole bodies and sometimes, unfortunately, players get knocked in the head resulting in a concussion, and many times they are  unreported. Athletes sacrifice their bodies for their school and team and after on in life, ex-athletes are reporting serious health problems resulting from playing sports. Also, sometimes an athlete will become hurt and have a career ending injury and his scholarship is taken away. Everything that this player worked for  is lost and on top of that they have to pay their medical bills. "Student-athletes at member institutions have insurance for medical expenses related to athletic injuries, the schools are not required to cover what the insurance doesn't, leaving it to parents, guardians, or the students themselves to take out policies and pay out-of-pocket costs." (Dixon). Because of all the stress athletes are putting on their body playing college sports, many are going to obtain various types of injuries. It is not fair that if a player tears his acl in a game or practice that he has to pay for the medical expenses. If players were paid then they could afford to pay for their surgeries after what is left from insurance but they players receive no money so if they injure themselves for playing for their school then the school should cover the expenses. Some universities do cover the medical expenses but only a select few, "The University of Alabama also covers medical,dental, and rehabilitation expenses for student-athletes who receive sports-related injuries." (Dixon). If alls schools were like Alabama then this would not be an issue. However, most schools aren't like this and kids can end up with thousands of dollars in debt because of what they need to pay to repair their injuries.

At this point in time it does not seem like the NCAA will change its ways any time soon but it is important for change to be discussed. Just because something is a certain way and it works doesn't mean there is no need for improvement. Players need to keep speaking their mind on how the NCAA is currently so their opinions are heard. If the NCAA stills wants to value education as the top priority they could implement a system mentioned previously. Players can choose whether or not they want to receive a free/reduced education and attend class or just take a salary and be a full-time athlete with no education involved. Paying student athletes salaries would be very difficult to pull off effectively but giving athletes money from their own jersey's and other merchandise involving them is the easiest way to compensate the athletes.Overall, the reason why athletes should be paid ranges from the NCAA's revenue to long-term injuries while playing their sport. The NCAA may not change their ways but they need to seriously consider alternatives to how the student-athlete is treated. 

