College football and other athletics have started to consume the lives of fans. Every weekend fans fill stadiums all across the country in order to root their team on. Now think about that, thousands of fans at most schools buying tickets to the game every weekend. 

That money sure adds up after a while. However, the players that continue to try and win 
games for these fans will never see a penny of that revenue. Now that just does not seem fair does it? College athletes have become icons at their university's and deserve to be compensated for it because of the revenue the athletes bring to the programs, they put in job-like hours for practice, and athletes remain at a constant risk of getting injured which could end their career. 

In today's society, money has become a very important thing in life, and college programs understand just how valuable money can be. Schools spend big time money on new facilities and a lot of other things in order to impress recruits, and it seems as if programs throughout the country seem to be rolling in money. In fact, from 2003 to 2012 the revenues of football teams in the SEC rose 91% and (Gregory), the NCAA makes $6 billion dollars annually including about $1 billion of that off of March Madness alone (US News). However, most schools run deficits each year and actually lose money off of their athletics (Davis). But some may wonder how that could happen. Well, Michael Leeds, an economics professor at Temple University explains that schools move around revenue they earn off of one sport to other sports or spend the extra revenue for no exact reason. In an article by Matthew Green he says, "Advocates argue that the NCAA is exploiting college athletes by profiting from their skill and celebrity status and not giving them even a small slice of the pie." So, do the college programs want to lose money on purpose for a way out of paying their players? Maybe so, maybe not, but the situation definitely is something to keep in mind when thinking about whether the athletes should be paid or not. 

How about players' jersey's? People buy the jerseys of good players in order to support their teams and support their favorite players. If someone buys the jersey of a player it would make sense that the player received some of the profit from the jersey since it is their number the consumer is buying right? Well that is not the case. Players do not receive any of the money from people buying their jersey's. Michael Wilbon stands firmly in tis aspect saying "If somebody is willing to give A.J. Green $750 or $1,000 or even $2,500 for his Georgia Bulldogs jersey, fine, good. If one of his teammates, a tackle, can fetch only $50 for his jersey, then it'll be a good marketing lesson for both of them." He takes the player's jersey aspect seemingly to an extreme, but there is a lot of money invested in college football uniform. In December of 2012, former Heisman trophy winner and Texas A&M quarterback, Johnny Manziel's jersey had 2,500 sales just at the local bookstore on campus, so that is just a small portion of the overall sales of his jersey across the country (Terbush). The NCAA does not allow company's to put the player's last names on the backs of the jersey's in order to make it seem as if it is not that player's jersey. The NCAA is very hard-nosed about this as well; getting any money from selling your jersey or signing an autograph can lead the player to get in a lot of trouble. For example, in 2014 the NCAA suspended Georgia's star running back, Todd Gurley, for accepting money for signed memorabilia (Green) This seems to be another thing the NCAA uses as an excuse to not pay the players. 

The NCAA is very strict about any athlete receiving money in recruiting or while they are enrolled in the university. Reggie Bush for example, star running back in the early 2000s for the University of Southern California and Heisman trophy winner was severely punished for receiving money from the school in the recruiting process. However, not only Bush was punished but the school as a whole. Reggie Bush relinquished his Heisman Trophy (award that goes to the best player in the country) which he won in 2005. The NCAA vacated all of the university's wins in 2004 and 2005, put Southern Cal on a four-year probation, and vacated 30 scholarships from the team (Hogan). Not only are athletes not being paid, but players and schools are being severely punished for giving money and benefits to players. Others say to go ahead and pay players no matter what the cost because that is what they deserve. For example, ESPN analyst, Skip Bayless, said that if teams are already paying players then "God bless them" because he feels that the players do so much for the schools as a whole that they should rightfully be paid because of it. 

It seems as if the NCAA does not truly respect the players hard work that they put in day in and day out. College athletes put in about sixty hours a week between workouts, practices, and games (Green). Sixty hours a week not including the classes they attend or the work that athletes put in for those classes. In fact, after interviewing Braden Webb, freshman pitcher for the University of South Carolina, said that players had to check into every class and were not allowed to miss a single one or would be punished if they decided to skip. With athletes working so many hours during the week there is no possible way for them to get a job to have spending money. All-pro running back Arian Foster for the Houston Texans explains his troubles with not having spending money in an E:60 (ESPN documentary). Foster explains how he grew up in a low income family and his family could not afford to send him money when he needed it. He also mentions that a lot of times when he played football for Tennessee that practice would run late and the dining hall would already be closed for the night. He would call the coach with a couple of other guys, and they mentioned that they could not eat because the dining hall was closed. As a result, the coach would go to Taco Bell and bring them food. The coach seems like he is doing the right thing right? However, that is against NCAA rules. Skip Bayless, ESPN analyst, believes that college athletes deserve to be paid, and that if coaches already are paying players, like Foster's coach, then "God bless them" Examples like that are reasons why collegiate athletes should be paid to play. 

Another reason the NCAA should pay their athletes, similar to before is playing a sport is like a job. As mentioned earlier, athletes put in sixty hours or more each week, but that's not the only reason why collegiate sports are job-like. Coaches hold players accountable for not violating team rules and to stay out of trouble. Almost every week ESPN mentions a player being suspended from some team for violating team rules or something of that nature. Just like in the workplace, players can very easily lose their "jobs" by not doing the right thing. Actually, one aspect of sports makes it more difficult than a job. Missing a day at work is not a huge deal a lot of the times, people take vacations with their families or maybe just a personal day. However, in sports, there are no off days. Players work hard every day they have practice or workouts and they work even harder on game days. Therefore, collegiate athletes have jobs in college that are on the court or field. 

Players work hard every day not receiving a penny of the money the schools are making off of the plays the athletes make, and the athletes are at a constant risk of injury. For instance, Kevin Ware, Louisville basketball player, suffered a gruesome injury in the NCAA tournament a couple years ago and had to transfer schools because Louisville no longer wanted him. 

When someone gets hurt on the job some people will still get paid even though they cannot physically work right? Well what happens when a player gets too hurt to play anymore? A possible loss of their scholarship furthering the point of playing a collegiate sport is even tougher than an ordinary job. Yes, scholarships are awarded on a year to year basis, so if a player gets injured or is a bust in recruiting the player can lose his job and may not be able to stay at the university at all. This goes back to an earlier point; a player can be "fired" from his "job" because scholarships are not offered for four years but on a year to year basis. 

Recently, things have started to move in the right direction towards players being compensated for their play. The NCAA now allows the power five conferences (SEC, ACC, PAC-12, BIG 10, BIG 12) and Notre Dame, a traditionally independent program that has recently joined the ACC in some sports but continue to be independent in football, to pay for all of the athlete's college expenses. Which means the teams can pay for the players' food, clothes, and other things of that nature (Gregory). The decision on how much to pay the players is left up to the individual school, so researchers say that athletes could receive between $2,000 and $5,000 (Gregory). This change is certainly a step in the right direction, and will end the issues that Arian Foster came across in his college career. However, this being implemented still does not compensate the players the way they should be because this money goes towards things that the athletes need not what an athlete wants, and it still does not solve the memorabilia issue of athletes not getting paid when their jersey is sold. 

Some people believe that just letting the power 5 conference teams pay their players will in turn ruin college sports, but that is not the case. These people think that this will in turn allow for no more upsets between smaller schools and the larger ones that can pay their players. However, those conferences being able to pay their players will not change recruiting very much at all because the top recruits in the country already go to the top schools, so that aspect will not change anything. In fact, according to Andy Schwarz' ten years of research 99% of the top one hundred athletes go on to play at the power 5 schools, so them getting an extra couple dollars will not change recruiting. If nothing changes in recruiting, then upsets will continue to happen. Every year there are plenty of upsets in every sport played at the collegiate level. For example, a 12 seed has beaten a 5 seed every year in the NCAA basketball tournament since 2008 and have won fifteen of the past twenty-eight matchups between the two (Lipscomb). Therefore, it seems like these power conference teams, even though they are getting the best recruits, still find a way to lose to higher seeds and smaller schools, so paying the players at the bigger schools will not change whether there are upsets or not in college athletics. 

Any analyst or big fan can have an opinion on the topic, but what really matters is what they players think about the subject. All these big time sports fans act like they have the perfect solution to the issue, but some of them never even ask an athlete what they think about the subject. However, Northwestern University attempted to form a player's union, but were ultimately shot down by the NCAA, but athletes are for sure trying to get their word out there (Farrey). After interviewing a couple of athletes, Clay Hunt College of Charleston baseball player, Adam Hill University of South Carolina baseball player, and Dalton Helms Football Campbell University football player, they all seemed to have similar answers when asked questions. Between all of them, they all said they think athletes should be paid, but not for the big reason that every thinks: money. They do not want to get paid for the money, just the hard work they put in each week. All of them also said that they do not even want a lot of money. Adam Hill said, "I think with as much work and time as athletes dedicate to what they do on top of their academic responsibilities, we have earned a small payment." Therefore, this is what makes the most sense because this is what the players want not what other people think that they want. 

There truly is not a perfect solution to the problem of how much and who should pay collegiate athletes, but an athlete should definitely receive a part of the money when their jersey is sold across the country because that is their number on a jersey, they own it. However, paying the players on their playing should be based on scholarship money they receive. The NCAA should find a way to somehow combine the revenue that each team at a school makes and the amount of scholarship money each athlete receives to see how much they should be paid. This would work because a five-star athlete would be placed on a full scholarship anywhere they go and they are usually the ones on the field making the big time plays on the field that the fans buy the tickets to see. On the other hand, a walk-on will more than likely not be making many plays until they prove themselves into earning a scholarship, so they will receive less money than a player making big plays. This strategy will make coaches strategically pick the players that they want to offer a full scholarship in the recruiting process. This also solves the issue of changing the recruiting process drastically because big time athletes will all receive full scholarships from schools that want them, so the player will not receive more money from certain schools thus they will go where they truly want to go and not base their decision on money. No, this strategy is not perfect, but the NCAA does need to pay the players because of the money that the athletes are bringing in, playing a sport may be even tougher than having a job, and the health risks that athletes have every day. 

