This question attracts my interest because it directly relates to me and the world around me. I feel as though it brings back the question of "indentured servitude" and slavery in a way. Student athletes often times lay it all out for their school and are not compensated other than with an education. It affects my morals because it falls directly in line with how I believe people should be treated. I find that if somebody contributes to a company or gives anything to anybody, then they deserve to be compensated for their efforts. My personal experience which connects with this topic is that I run Track and Field here at the University of South Carolina, so consequently this question directly affects me. Many say that I am advocating for this subject just for the fact that I would benefit from it, but it is more of an issue that affects the student athletes other than the fact that I would like to be compensated. It is a moral issue that brings into question of why are student athletes not paid. I believe I am qualified to write this research paper because I am a student athlete and have daily interactions with many of the elite athletes at this university that will go on to make millions one day playing their respective sport, but others may not make a dime off of their trade when they depart here. 

The first source I have discovered relates to when the University of North Carolina was investigated for giving some of their football players' improper benefits and helping them out with fake grades to allow them to be academically eligible to perform on the field. A few players were given fake grades in order to compete which is wrong because it is cheating the athlete because he cannot receive the same education as the regular college student. This is unfair to both the average student and the athlete because they are both cheated in different manners, the student athlete works significantly less than the average student at that class and receives an A while the other student works five times as much and receives a B. It is also unfair to the athlete because he/she leaves school after 4 years with no significant skills other than the name of a degree from a school and no prior work experience. This source is very credible because it is from a library run database on sports and it was written in the Forbes magazine so the prominence of this magazine allows for its credibility to be increased. 

The next source I discovered was a somewhat controversial bill proposed in Nebraska a little while back that said that student athletes at big schools should be paid for their services. It raised a great bit of a stir because once again it brings up the question "how much" and the NCAA always wants to maintain their statement of "preserving amateurism" within the league. The perennial issue where most people think it would be unfair because some schools could afford to pay their players more which would be more of a recruiting draw, however, there is already a greater draw to larger schools anyway so this should have a minimal effect. People tend to believe that a scholarship for an athlete and to be able to pay their tuition and room and board and all other variables is enough, but for some it is not. How would you feel if you worked an average of 30-50 hours per week while in season with no monetary compensation, and you would have to manage going to school at the same time? It is incredibly unfair proportionately, and it should be thought of in such a way. Imagine a construction company on a college campus that hires students and says they must work 50 hours a week all year, but their college will be completely paid for, it is still proportionately unfair. I believe the athletes that should benefit most from these changes are revenue generating players, such as football and basketball players at major universities. If a student athlete's family cannot afford to send him to school, then the athlete's family should potentially receive a stipend as well to improve their lifestyles slightly. This article is credible because it was searched through Ebsco Host and it was published in USA Today in 2003 which allows it a higher capability for credibility. 

The final crucial source that I found on my topic relates once again to the affect paying a college athlete would have on many factors. It is a compilation of input from the people who wished to weigh in on the topic from all around the country. It is interesting because it allows for various sources and opinions. Both sides of the argument are presented in different manners which causes for an interesting article. The most compelling argument from this is the ability that the NCAA has but does not capitalize upon that they can start a small percentage of the billions of dollars they take in each year and allow them to split it up between student athletes across the board. The credibility of this article is the only questionable thing about this article. Although, sometimes articles that have inputs from all over the spectrum of thought have a greater effectiveness. This is because it is a compilation of many different people who have different backgrounds and perspectives and are not experts on the topic. However, it does raise some interesting questions and it brings to light a lot of perspectives that may not have formerly been seen. 

Finally, the research question is highly debatable because a great deal of people believe student athletes already have plenty of compensation with their scholarships, but on the other hand it is observed that proportionately the student athletes are barely paid for their efforts on the field and the millions they bring in for their schools and the billions they take in for the NCAA. There have been countless other agreements and disagreements with the ideas about paying college athletes across the board. I firmly hold true to my stance that student athletes should be compensated in a way other than just scholarships.

