Today Americans are taught from a young age that hard work pays off.  They are taught to put their mind to something and to never give up.  They are taught to follow their dreams and to reach for the stars.  Some of these young aspiring people find this dream in playing sports, and aim to be the best athlete they can possibly be.  If through their high school athletic career a college sports team decides to invest in the previously mentioned athlete by means of a scholarship, the athlete will have the opportunity to continue following their dream.  In a college setting, the athlete continues working tirelessly for their school.  This work is ultimately translated into positive results for the school such as a better reputation, increased revenue, more national attention, respect, success, endorsements, and many other important successes.  As an American citizen, this hard work should be rewarded.  The amount of benefits college athletes provide for their university is seemingly endless.  The young American who fought so hard to make name for himself is now only making a name for his school.   From a financial standpoint, athletic programs depend on the effort of their players.  Players are the center focus of sports.   

But wait, if players sacrifice so much and put everything on the line for a big name school's sports team, surely there is a system in place to give back to the athletes.  One would think schools would be scrambling to give everything in their power to the student athletes to reward them for their relentless efforts.  But in reality, there is no system.  There is no current way to reward players.  Without participants, there would be no sports and consequently no profit.  This critical aspect, profit, is defined in this context as a team's revenue minus the expenses.  Only two college sports leagues consistently bring in a constant, positive profit for the colleges involved: football bowl subdivision (FBS) of division one and division one men's basketball ("Compare College Sports Programs").  Football and basketball athletes cause exponential more profit than other sports such as baseball, lacrosse, field hockey, track and field, or swimming. In fact, over sixty percent of FBS football programs generate more than one million dollars in profit each year with the most from one school exceeding one hundred million dollars ("Compare College Sports Programs").  Division one men's basketball shows proportional smaller, but still profitable totals.  With all the profit accumulating, one would think the scholarship players, the driving forces of revenue, would receive a regulated share of this profit.  However, there is no system in place to pay college athletes beyond the cost of college expenses whatsoever. These specific football and basketball programs should make an effort to support the scholarship players, players who receive nothing from schools they make millions for.  

NCAA division one FBS programs and division one men's basketball programs should be required to finance stipends to each scholarship player at the beginning of their sport's season.  Each FBS program is allowed eighty-five scholarship players and division one men's basketball programs are allowed thirteen each (O'Rourke).  With sixty percent of the FBS football programs making over one million dollars in profit, is giving eighty-five players a share so much of a problem?  Much less, a basketball school making millions in profit with only thirteen scholarship players should be able to afford paying a few thousand to each player.  These stipends should be set at an amount determined by the NCAA.  The motivation behind the stipend is not to make the athletes rich, but to support their simple costs of living, as they cannot work while playing the sport.

Some may choose to argue against this annual stipend for athletes.  One main argument against paying players lies in a term called amateurism.  Amateurism describes the idea that college athletes' lack of pay is responsible for much of the popularity surrounding the sport and consequently the revenue generated.  People argue that if players were to be paid, they would no longer be considered amateurs, who are more fun to watch by some than professionals are.  They argue amateurs play with more heart, effort, and will than professionals do.  However, the suggested stipend players would receive would not make an impact on this amateur status.  Since the stipend would be designed to only be large enough to finance the players' cost living, the athletes would still play with the same effort as unpaid athletes.  The only difference being athletes receiving stipends wouldn't have to deal with the stress of supplying money for food, clothing, living, gas, etc.  Another aspect of the amateurism is that high school prospects would choose the school who offers the highest pay, rather than the actual qualities of the university and athletic program themselves (Yankah).  People could try to argue each school would try to pay athletes more and more until the college sports setting resembles the professional league setting with players and their agents discussing the best financial move for the player and deciding what school gives the most benefits.  College sports should not be like this.  A potential player should pick a college based on the coaching staff, the campus, the classes themselves, other players, and really anything the school offers besides finances.  This stipend would, again, not interfere because all scholarship athletes would be paid equally.

Paying only certain divisions of football and basketball brings the issue of unfairness to other divisions whose players do not receive stipends.  Some might think schools who give stipends have an unfair recruiting advantage.  This advantage is not, however, any different than not giving stipends.  A high school athlete would be more interested in the first place in big revenue generating sports programs because these programs get athletes the most attention.  There is already so much competition that the same top tier athletes would go to the same top tier sports programs that they would have even without the stipend system.  A stipend system would be even more motivation for young athletes to work hard, which would eventually better the quality of college football and basketball, benefitting everyone involved in sports.

Another point of argument against paying athletes is a controversy surrounding Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972.  Title IX states all federally funded programs must offer equal opportunities independent of sex ("Title IX Freqently Asked Questions").  Some would say that paying only some football and men's basketball players discriminates against other sports because only men play.  Title IX does not apply to this suggested stipend because the pay is based on profit generated rather than on sex.  It is simply a coincidence that the two profit generating sports are men's sports.  An argument to the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education (department responsible for enforcing Title IX) in favor of the stipends has much potential in validating the stipends' cooperation with Title IX.  Title IX is not specific enough to be able to ban the giving of stipends to some college players.

Despite these reasons against paying athletes, athletes should most definitely be paid.  Basketball and football athletes are simply taken advantage of by the NCAA and schools.  These athletes dedicate and sacrifice their time, effort, and money to perform well for their schools.  Their schools do not even have the decency to reward these sacrifices with even the smallest share of the wealth.  Athletes miss weeks of school to participate in sports, and spend countless hours during the school week to practice and train.  In fact, the average athlete spends around forty hours a week and misses ten days of class for athletic events (Benedykcuik).  That's right; college athletes treat their sport as a full time job, yet they receive nothing above a scholarship in return.  Also, many athletes are injured playing their sport, which often causes a loss of scholarship, leading the player to drop out of school with thousands of dollars in medical debt.  On top of that, many of the athletes come from very low-income families, families who would not be able to afford sending their child to school without a full scholarship.  How can anyone expect athletes from lower class backgrounds to support themselves during their hectic college career?  If it weren't for the scholarship, many athletes would be forced to join the workforce to financially support themselves.  The players would be making at least minimum wage and would be able to start helping pay bills for their family.  But if the player is playing a sport at a college, there is no time to give back to the family.  With a stipend system in place, the NCAA can begin to assist its players who are in these difficult situations.

One cannot imagine being overwhelmed with the large workload of a college athlete without experiencing it personally.  In a recent episode of the debate television talk show Crossfire, former college basketball star and NBA Hall of Famer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar spoke out in favor of paying basketball players.  In the episode he states, "It's a $6 billion a year industry. Last year, CBS and TBS split up $1 billion just off of March Madness. There's so much money being made and the people who are creating this wealth do not get to participate and they don't get to graduate."  Abdul-Jabbar knows what its like to be a college athlete because he has experienced it personally.  He knows very well the struggle of trying to juggle both school and basketball at the same time without being paid.  Abdul-Jabbar says not only do the college basketball players get no participation in sharing the wealth they create, but also they often don't graduate college either, with entering the professional leagues before graduation being a popular move.  If a knowledgeable person such as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a strong advocate of paying players, who is to say they shouldn't be paid?  

There is a problem with college athletics that is the temptation of players to leave their college early for a professional league such as the NFL or the NBA.  This is a problem for both the NCAA and for the players.  For the NCAA, star players leave their college program, which means the NCAA no longer profits from the player.  As for the players themselves, they are gambling with their financial future.  Say a junior football player in college has a successful season and decides to enter the NFL draft the following spring.  This player probably doesn't earn a huge salary (by an NFL player's standards) and doesn't get much playtime for the first few years.  Now imagine the player breaks his leg and can no longer play football or is cut from his team.  Not only is his NFL contract and only source of income gone, but also he has no college degree to pursue a job.  Far too often young professional athletes spend their contract money and declare bankruptcy before losing their position on the team.  According to CBS Money Watch, "one in six NFL players go bankrupt."  The player is in not in an ideal situation because of his decision to enter the NFL draft early before graduating.  If college players were given stipends in college, there wouldn't be as much pressure to join a professional league.  College players could live life more comfortably and more athletes would graduate with a degree.  The stipend not only helps the NCAA in the long run with revenue, but also allows for less successful NFL players to have degrees and to join the workforce after their football career.  Stipends would indirectly give hope to otherwise hopeless former professional athletes.  

There have been some attempts to settle this issue on paying college athletes.  For example, a recent court ruling struck down a proposal to pay college athletes five thousand dollars per year (Stripling).  This ruling was likely due to a lack of depth in the proposal about ideas such as how to fund this pay, who to pay, and who not to pay.  Another suggestion to solve the problem came from the South Carolina football coach at the time, Steve Spurrier.  Spurrier in an interview stated he strongly supports paying players three hundred dollars per game out of his own personal salary if necessary (Hayes).  This idea, although undeveloped, shows that a successful FBS head coache supports paying players.  The statement by Spurrier was more stated to get the idea out to the public rather than to be interpreted as a literal definite plan.  Still the importance of the head coach's statement stands.  

Many people believe that in the near future, college athletes will be paid or financially supported more effectively in some way.  Supporting this idea is an article written by an economist from the University of Chicago, who states, "Major social movements in this country  --  civil rights, abortion, gay rights and same-sex marriage  --  have followed evolutionary paths. We expect to see similar accommodations on the collegiate front soon. It is now time to end the price-fixing that restrains compensation for college athletes" (Sanderson).  According to the author of the article, over time things take certain unavoidable paths and evolve to naturally improve themselves and work out errors.  In college sports, the area of improvement is obviously that college athletes are not being paid, and the author would argue college sports will take a similar evolutionary path to recent issues like civil rights, gay rights, and same sex marriage.  The author of the article is referring to lifting a ban on paying college athletes above their college expenses.  

Lifting this ban is only the first step in implementing this stipend system for paying college football and men's basketball players.  People must also prove to the government that Title IX laws will not be broken by the system.  This will most likely be done in a courtroom to work out the specifics of the idea.  Once the ban is lifted, the NCAA must come together and decide that the two specific groups of athletes mentioned previously should be paid due to their sport's profit.  After it is decided to pay the players, there is only the issue of how much to pay and where to get the money from.  A difficult aspect of the idea is how to decide the amount of money to give scholarship players of their respective sports.  However, with proper communication, it is certain an agreement can be made between schools, players, the NCAA, and the government as to the stipend amount and other qualifications and specifics.

Profit generating college athletes deserve more.  Creating a system to reward the athletes whose actions on the field or court lead to others making billions of dollars is an absolute necessity.  It is the responsibility of people in positions of power to carryout and finalize such a system, but it is the everyday person who can spread the word and make it a common belief for FBS football programs and NCAA division one men's basketball programs to pay the players whom they rely so much on.  With a collective effort from players, fans, coaches, and the NCAA, an agreement resulting in the giving of stipends to players in return for their efforts must be reached.

