
In the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the NCAA generated $989 million, while only spending slightly over $900 million dollars, thus leaving them with a surplus of $80 million. Upon the many ways to spend this money, the NCAA decided the best course of action was to send the money to, "an ever-growing endowment fund whose main purpose is to safeguard the institution against a financial catastrophe, particularly related to its primary moneymaker: the March Madness basketball tournament"[Strachan]. This surplus, one of the largest in history, could have alternatively been used to pay college student athletes, however the NCAA is still rigid in their opposition to the topic. The near billion dollars generated in revenue is directly because of an increasingly difficult commitment that young men and women make to play college athletics. Due to their hard labor and dedication to the sport, they should be able to receive some further form of compensation from the NCAA, opposed to them safeguarding March Madness, whose current deal with CBS Sports and Turner Cable is worth $10.8 billion over the course of 14 years. When the Northwestern Football team tried to form the first ever college athlete labor union, they did so on the grounds that they could be viewed as employees of the university. However, since unionization laws vary across the country, and Northwestern is only one of seventeen Division 1 athletic teams that is a private university, unionization is not an option for the majority of colleges. Due to their relationship with their universities where they can be seen as employees, as well as the large amount of money they generate, the NCAA should begin to allow student athletes to be further compensated.

The debate over more student athlete compensation took off when the Northwestern Football team attempted to form a labor union in January 2014, with the decision not being finalized until August 2015. The decision to allow Northwestern Football to attempt to form a union was, "The ruling found that athletics scholarships are a form of compensation for services performed. It also found that, because of the significant time commitment required by football programs, the economic relationship that players have with their university, and the control the institution has over their schedules, football players are employees of the university"[Wolverton 1]. Following the ruling, Northwestern quickly appealed on the terms that, "players are students first, and that the decision overlooked crucial parts of its testimony"[Wolverton 2]. The National Labor Relations Board also made a statement saying, "The NLRB concluded that making a decision in this case would "not serve to promote stability in labor relations"[Gregory]. With the decision being turned down by the National Labor Unions Relations board, the fight for unionization becomes one that will be handled in the courtroom, and is one that will take a long time to complete. 

The alternative solution would be for the NCAA to provide money to universities to allow for them to give their players cash stipends. The NCAA has given this right to universities as of September 2015, however smaller schools are not able to compete with bigger schools largely due to a lack of funds. Through the NCAA directly giving money to universities, they would be able to provide additional payments in the form chosen by the university. According to Chris Isidore, a writer for CNN Money, says that the payments "range from about $2,000 to $5,000 a year, although some schools are reportedly offering a few thousand more than that"[Isidore]. This additional money would be very beneficial to the student athletes, as even though they follow a very difficult schedule, the full ride scholarship still does not often cover the cost of a full year of attendance, and they players have earned the right to receive a part of the millions of dollars they provide. 

While this proposal is realistic and ethical, many people including the NCAA are against the proposal of student athletes receiving any additional compensation asides from a scholarship. The NCAA provided a statement on the issue when they said that, "providing salaries for student-athletes would undermine the purpose of going to college, which is to get an education, and that participation in college sports is, after all, voluntary"[Congressional Digest]. The NCAA is very rigid in their stance on the issue, and because they believe that scholarships award the chance to attend college to people who can't afford it, they don't see the need to spend additional money on these athletes. Also in the article is, "Students' athletic and academic experiences are not separate, they contend, but enhance each other and build character"[Congressional Digest]. An athletic scholarship is not solely based on athletics, as there are often GPA requirements in order for an athlete to be able to play. Because the role of student is vital in playing college athletics, the NCAA does not want them to profit off of receiving a quality education while electing to play a sport at the Division 1 level. 

Under the current standard, universities are actually allowed to award larger scholarships to students, however they have to completely fund it themselves. For this reason, it creates inequality because of the variation in size of all universities that have Division 1 athletic programs, as well as how successful their athletics are. In his article "Cracking The Cartel," Theodore Ross, a former professor for student athletes at the University of Southern California, explains, "Think USC versus SDSU. The Trojans are a national brand as well as a national power; an expensive private school, with wealthy alumni and boosters, and an iconic sports institution that people around the country support by buying t-shirts, caps, foam fingers, and tiny replica football helmets. The Aztecs possess few of these attributes and wouldn't necessarily have the money to stay in the big-time game, although they might opt to do so even without it"[Ross]. This comparison is an important viewpoint, because many schools would have trouble competing against the perennial football powers as they lack the brand name and funding necessary to keep bringing in the top recruits, which is needed for keeping the generated revenue high. For the schools that this would effect the most, some would actually drop down to a Division 2 level, where they would have a much better chance to be successful. 

The decision to pay student athletes is one that is very hard to make, as many schools find trouble in profiting from their athletic programs, and they would not have the funding required to pay each of their athletes. Patrick Harker, the President of the University Of Delaware, and also a member of the NCAA board of directors said, "Only about 10 percent of Division I college sports programs turn a profit, and most of them, like our $28 million athletic program at the University of Delaware, lose money"[Harker]. Due to his presence on the Board of Directors, Harker plays a major role in advocating for no further compensation, as he first hand understands how a Division 1 athletic school can lose profits even if the school is very large. This makes a major point for the argument against unionization, as many believed that only small schools will struggle, however it is any school with a lackluster athletic program that ultimately be affected by the decision to pay student athletes. 

Student athletes have a much more difficult schedule than other students, and are also monitored more closely due to their need to represent the athletic programs well. Because of these circumstances, student athletes should be able to be seen as employees of the university, and for this reason they should be able to get paid. In an article for Forbes magazine, Mark Edelman describes many reasons for why student athletes can be viewed as employees. Among his main points, his central argument is that, "The typical Division I college football player devotes 43.3 hours per week to his sport  --  3.3 more hours than the typical American work week"[Edelman". College athletes are dedicating a full workweek to their sport, as well as having to meet academic requirements, which truly separate them from other students. Leigh Steinberg, the owner of Steinberg Sports and Entertainment claims that, "student athletes have 50-hour weeks during the season, and that during training camp they spend nearly 60 hours per week"[Steinberg]. The excessively long workweek doesn't have any room for student athletes to be able to work, so they need funds in order to pay off expenses. Former NFL player Jarvis Green reflected on his finances during his playing time at Lousiana State University saying, "I had a summer job, and I was working 40 hours a week but I still has summer school and then practice in the hot sun, I was working 40 hours a week and it still wasn't enough ...  You're making so much money for these universities but you're still getting paid peanuts to survive"[Steinberg] The student athletes have no control over their schedules, and don't even have an opportunity to work, and the funding they would receive would be able to help them pay for everything that isn't covered by the scholarship. 

A potential solution for this problem would be to allow players to profit off of their own name. In an article, Rick LaBlue analyzes the current system and writes, "Currently, the "Summary of NCAA Regulations" says "You are not eligible in a sport if you ever have accepted money, transportation or other benefits from an agent or agreed to have an agent market your athletics ability or reputation in that sport"[LaBlue]. This is a poor standard as universities sell uniforms with the player's numbers on the back, and the sales of jerseys generally relate to how well the student athlete performs at school. By allowing student athletes to at least profit off of their own name, it takes away the need for some players to have to try and work a job, and rightfully lets them earn money based on their performances. 

When looking at the breakdown of college basketball and football players, both sports have black student athletes representing over 50% of all players. Dr. Darron Smith, a specialist in race relations analyzes the role of a college athlete, and claims that they are in a exploitative relationship with their universities. Smith describes it as, "Today big-time college sports is one of a handful of activities in which blacks can be controlled for profit. Young black men follow directives from modern-day robber barons who dictate the terms and conditions of play." This is showing that black student athletes are recruited by schools to primarily play a sport, and that they then have no control over their schedule which demonstrates how they are not typical students of the university. Smith contrasts the statement made by the NCAA claiming that the role of student is equally important, as he claims, "Even more concerning is the lack of academic preparedness among these students when they arrive on campus. It is utterly self-serving on the part of the institution to recruit players who lack the basic reading, writing, and arithmetic skills necessary to obtain a good education"[Smith]. Due to a large amount black student athletes being from poor areas, as well as an exploitative relationship with universities that are based on profit rather than academics, it only seems just for them to be able to be paid a fraction of what the NCAA and universities make off of them.  

It is time to begin to pay student athletes for the copious amounts of effort they dedicate in order to strengthen their universities athletics. The NCAA needs to realize that the March Madness basketball tournament and College Football Playoffs are now attracting more viewers than ever, and they are actually making students miss their classes in order to compete in these tournaments, which is completely contradictory to their mindset that the role of student always take precedence before athletics. Student athletes are being used for entertainment purposes and are not being paid any of the hundreds of millions of dollars they are directly responsible for. Yes, there is a potential downside to this; however it is unfair to assume that student athletes will be irresponsible with the money or flock to schools with the most funding, as the payments they receive do not have a wide range, as they would universally be within $3,000-$10,000, with the amounts varying by sport. This risk is worth taking, as the amount of money involved is not incredibly high. Student athletes truly do live much different lives than the normal college student, and it is time for the NCAA to realize this and allow for them to be paid. 

