
Over 45% of all Americans follow college sports. With this being said, in 2014 around 29 million people attended a sporting event. All across America, people come together for local college sporting events to watch live and on television. There is a sense of enjoyment that can likely be compared to that of European soccer; however, a large debate has been discussed over the past ten years about whether these athletes are getting enough incentives for the amount of profit they make and effort they put in. Money, whether you like it or not, dictates most of today's society, so it makes sense for these college athletes that excel in the sport they play to ask for it. At first one could think that there is really no argument to settle here; they are in college, they don't need any more money from the institutions; however, there seems to be many factors that drives the decision to pay these athletes. As many people know, athletes in college that show extreme talent are recruited and given a multitude of scholarships which end in free tuition and housing; however, these is still not fair to these athletes while organizations are making millions of dollars and they see only an extremely small portion of it. When one analyzes whether or not these athletes should be making a profit, there is a multitude of aspects that dictate the debate. How much of a profit is made by companies such as the NCAA, do they receive special treatment when it comes to grades and their education, how different are athletes lives from ordinary students, and how would it affect a school as a whole when money comes into account as players are chosen their senior years of high school? These athletes need to start getting compensated now. They do all of the work while colleges ring in the money for themselves.

One main aspect seems to catch the attention of most athletes which cause them to question whether or not they should be given larger incentives. This key factor lies within the hands of the organizations that seem to make extreme amounts of profit from the athleticism shown by the players. Athletic associations like NCAA and SEC hold large tournaments and championships that rake in large amounts of money. According to CBS Sports, the SEC reportedly made 527.4 million dollars in revenue during their first college football playoff on the SEC network during the 2014-2015 season and this was only the playoffs. The large amounts of money seem to be going to everyone but the actual players which are the main draw of the entire network. "The NCAA currently produces around $11 billion in annual revenue from college sports" (Edelman). This is much higher than the annual revenue for the National Basketball Association which actually pays its players multi-million dollar salaries even if they are benched or miss games with an injury. Most of this money is given back to the universities where they fund the other sports programs and build larger and better facilities. When college athletes begin to hear numbers such as these from the companies that manage them, who could blame them for raising an eyebrow at the fact that they will not receive one cent of that income? It is unfathomable that a player on an NBA team can be benched for an entire season but still receive a million dollars or more, while a college athlete who continues to win tournaments during March Madness does not receive any sort of income. This is where many questions begin to be asked about why these athletes aren't receiving the benefits that they deserve only due to the fact that they are a few years younger than the professionals. The NCAA excuses the fact that they don't pay athletes by labeling them as "amateurs" and "college athletes". It has been documented that the NCAA actually came up with the word "college athlete" in order to explain their policies. Wouldn't a college coach be considered in amateur? However, they still get paid upwards of four million dollars a year. 

When it comes to being a college athlete, they have to deal with much more stress than the everyday college students. They likely begin their days likely in the weight room at 6 am followed by classes which are hand selected for them to be able to make the additional practice sessions throughout the day (Heitner). Once practice and class is completed, they must make time for meals, homework, and sleep if there is any time for that at all. In addition, they have to be diligently working on how to improve their game at all times. They not only compete with other teams, they compete with their teammates over who is the best and who will be able to start in the upcoming games (Oliver). They constantly stress themselves on the field to the fullest extent, they must have study times in order to maintain a GPA that allows them to stay on the team. 

When it comes to GPAs, colleges stay to strict laws in order to ensure that their athletes are performing to the standards of the university. They hire tutors and teachers for the athletes to give them any additional help that is needed for them to succeed in a course. Some may say that this is one of the benefits that these athletes get. Why would they need money when they are practically getting free tutors for every course? However, one main point that is not discussed in articles, such as The New Republic piece on "Cracking the Cartel", is that regular students have access to tutors just like athletes. There are programs like the Student Success Center at The University of South Carolina that are included in student's tuition that allows them to reach out and get any help they need in a class. The main difference would only be the fact that the athletes' tutors come to the athlete lounges and training facilities due to the fact that they have little time for transportation between practices and class. The article also states, "No longer offered as mere legal tender, compensation is transformed, via education, into a vehicle for the athlete's "social betterment" -- college is good for you, socially and personally, better even than money, or so goes the argument." (Ross). These athletic associations believe that it is fair to withhold compensation as long as the education is given to the athletes free. It is unfathomable to believe that they have the power; nevertheless, the power, to decide to transform their pay into something other than an actual profit.

Despite this, many CBS and Forbes reporters believe that these players are able to not only be students and athletes, but are also able to work in their free time in order to pay the rest of their bills. However, where could one of these athletes get the time for a part time job? Brad Jones, University of Cincinnati player, graduated in 2009 after receiving a full scholarship during his four years; however, he still had to take out loans in order to have enough money for additional costs such as food, utilities, and other needs (Heitner). Luckily the debt has already been paid off, but many athletes seem to get stuck in the same situations. They have no means of making money, so they must take out loans in order to pay for the basic essentials during their stay in college. Some players are not as lucky as Jones and need to borrow more money in order to cover living expenses and the rest of the cost that the scholarships did not cover. "Jacksonville University fullback Robert DiMarco has dealt with a much more drastic battle concerning debt.  He took out $22,000 in student loans before graduating from JU in May 2013" (Heitner). Due to the remaining housing and food costs, he was left in debt without anyway of working it of until after graduation where he could finally make the time for a job. This is a prime example of how becoming a player for a large school even to simply get scholarship money to attend can still leave you with tremendous debt to deal with after graduation. It is later stated in this Forbes article, that DiMarco continues to deal with anxiety over the debt owed once he graduates law school due to the fact that the interest continues to add up each year onto the existing 22,000 dollars. DiMarco and Jones are only two examples that portray the end result for many athletes that cannot rely on going pro to repay the loans they have accumulated in college. 

When it comes to recruiting, top high school players are given multiple offers from schools that include a multitude of scholarships. Each player weighs out the pros and cons of each university and chooses the best offer for them. However, many wonder how this process of recruitment will change if an income comes into play when it comes to choosing a school. The Sport Journal puts light on this subject and seems to find a result to what the payment of athletes would do to athletic programs. They state, "The other Division I football and basketball programs as well as sports such as baseball, softball, golf, hockey, women's basketball (minus a couple of notable programs), and just about all Division II sports not only fail to make money, but actually drain their athletic budgets. The outcome here would be inevitable: Forcing athletic departments to pay its football and basketball players would result in the eventual elimination of most, if not all, of the non-revenue sports. Is that what we want?" (Johnson and Aquaviva). What this article does not discuss is whether or not this money can be used in a wiser way. The Bloomberg interview stated that universities could easily find a way to manage their budgets in a way where they could pay their basketball and football athletes as well as continuing on the low profit sports. These low profit sports would need to change where they had tournaments as well as deal with facilities that aren't renewed every five years or so. Universities are putting a large amount of funding into smaller sports such as lacrosse and softball and see no profits in return. 

In the Washington Post, statistics were stated revealing exactly how much money universities were making from their athletic programs and how much they were spending even quicker. "In 10 years, 48 athletic departments in college sports' wealthiest conferences saw earnings surge by nearly $2 billion and spent it almost as quickly as it came in. Many programs still need student fees and school money to pay their bills." (Hobson and Rich). This is where money management is key with the universities. Instead of spending the money on their players' salaries, they are trying to make their facilities even bigger and better than the next university. If they were too truly manage their money, universities would be able to not only pay their players, but also make small advances to their complexes each year. A billion dollars can go a long way ... as long as you know how to spend it.

In conclusion there are many point of views that impact the judgment of the subject. Originally discussing this subject, it seems to be unrealistic to pay these players to play for the university's teams as they get a free education; however, as more facts are discussed throughout this argument, it causes one to wonder whether or not the original position on the matter is correct. These athletes live a completely separate lifestyle from the average student. They chose to play these sports in order to allow their education to become more affordable, but in the end, they can still remain in debt, have less time for their studies, and are most likely left without an offer to go professional. With all of these outcomes, student athletes should be able to make an income as they practically work for the university for their entire college career.

