College athletes should be able to make money for their skills. This topic interests me because I am a fan of collegiate sports. Suspensions and disqualifications for teams and players for issues concerning players' finances are becoming all too common in NCAA sports. This research question does not affect me directly, but it could potentially affect schools that I cheer for and student-athletes that I know personally. Morally, I have no opposition to student-athletes being paid. I know many high-school student-athletes that were kept from college because they could not afford it, even with scholarships from academics and athletics. If the NCAA would allow them to accept money from boosters or even make profit from their own name, these young men and women would be able to continue their education at a higher level. My qualifications that pertain to this topic are that I had to fill out the NCAA questionnaire regarding if I had accepted gifts or money at any time during my athletic career, all the way back to little league baseball. I know how strict the NCAA rules are; they consider any instance in which player has received any sort of gift from anybody as a potential violation. 

My first source is an article by Richard McKenzie titled "Does the NCAA Exploit College Athletes". The article has three main claims; the third is that the NCAA is hypocritical because they exploit athletes by televising events, selling jerseys, and profiting from attendance and viewings of collegiate athletics, yet they offer no compensation to the student-athletes. This article was not written to degrade the NCAA or even to support that they are guilty of any wrongdoing, it was written to shed light on many of the opinions and arguments against the NCAA. It is not biased, as it shows both sides of all three central ideas. The authors are well-respected in the economic community and have been cited many times in articles related to economics. 

The second article I used is written by Kristine Mueller, who has also been cited many times for her article about the NCAA and college athletes. The article is titled "No Control Over Their Rights of Publicity: College Athletes Left Sitting the Bench".  The central claim in this article is that when college athletes agree to participate in the NCAA, they sign over their rights of publicity to the University or College they will play for. An individual's right to publicity is their right to be compensated for anything that generates revenue using their name, likeness, nicknames, etc. Universities and colleges profit off of college athletes and no compensation is given to the athlete, regardless of their financial situation. The article stands up for college athletes against the NCAA. This article is biased because the argument is blatantly in favor of the athletes; little to no argument is given for the NCAA.

The third article I will be using is called "Revenue Sharing: A Simple Cure for the Exploitation of College Athletes". It is written by Michael P. Acain. He has been cited many times for his article and is well-respected. This article explicitly blames the NCAA's rule that prohibits athletes from accepting any sort of compensation for participating, except for athletic scholarships. It calls men's basketball and football "revenue sports" because of the ridiculous amount of money they generate. It says that the NCAA's rules against the athletes receiving compensation are out of date, due to the fact that the sports now generate millions, if not billions, of dollars in revenue for the participating universities. Universities also sign endorsement deals so the players must wear a certain brand of shoes and uniforms. These deals also generate millions of dollars. This argument could be seen as biased due to the fact that it does not have much information about opposing arguments. It is mainly about the revenue sharing that could solve the problem of college athletes and their families not receiving compensation for their skills, time, and effort. The author uses many other articles as sources, which are all written by respected members of society. 

My research question is should college athletes be paid. This question is arguable because it can be argued in two different ways. One argument is that collegiate athletes should not be paid at all, and the system should not be changed. Another argument is that the players should be able to profit off of their names and likenesses, through video games, jersey sales, trading cards, etc or through revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is when the university would share a percentage of the revenue generated by college sports with the athletes. The sources I found all agree that student-athletes should be compensated in some way. Their differences are in how they should be paid. The third article clearly says that revenue sharing is the best way to compensate the athletes, while others believe that they should make money off of their name or appearance. The differing perspectives have me thinking more about revenue sharing than the athletes only profiting from their names. Revenue sharing seems like the best way in my opinion. My question could be changed to be more specific, instead of should college athletes be paid, it could be how should college athletes be paid, and compare revenue sharing to the idea of the athletes profiting from their names.

