
The NCAA has built itself into what some people may call an empire, and rightfully so. According to the NCAA's website, in 2015 the organization had a revenue of $912.3 million (NCAA Revenue Breakdown, 2015). While the NCAA's revenue comes from a vast array of sources, it is really no secret where all of the zeros and commas are really generated. Big name Division I universities and their televised athletics such as football and basketball are the real money magnets. However, there is one key factor that makes all of that revenue possible, and that's the athletes themselves. These athletes are a huge part of why the NCAA sits upon the throne it does, which raises a long lasting and highly debated issue. With all of the revenue these athletes generate, a lot of people believe they should be entitled to payments beyond scholarships and such. There are also those in direct opposition claiming that because the level of competition is not yet professional, they should not be entitled to forms of payment. These people claim paying the athletes would over time begin to diminish the "student" part of the term student-athlete. Before I began my extensive research on this topic, as just an avid sports viewer and fan, I was opposed to any form of payment for student-athletes. As a freshman at a big university I thought it was unfair how catered it seemed the student-athletes were. However, my stance has changed over the course of my research. I still believe a direct salary is not the way to go. However, through alternatives such as endorsements and trust funds, colleges will be able to find the perfect medium in which these college athletes are monetarily compensated for their years of hard work and dedication to their sport, school, and the NCAA.

The issue really took center stage in recent years when former UCLA basketball legend Ed O'Bannon filed a lawsuit against the NCAA. The lawsuit challenged the NCAA's policy on selling naming rights, images, and likenesses. O'Bannon felt mistreated and misused due to his obvious representation of a player in an NCAA basketball video game without compensation, but he was not alone as, "U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland, California, ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon and 19 others in a lawsuit that challenged the NCAA's regulation of college athletics on antitrust grounds" (Business Insider, 2014). This case would cause a frenzy of similar situations and an uproar for proper compensation of college athletes.

 There are many arguments for both sides of whether or not athletes should be paid at the collegiate level. Those who oppose this argue that the athletes are not yet at the professional level, so they are not yet playing as their career, and as such should not be paid for it. In addition they say that if the athletes start getting paid to play as early as eighteen, that the meaning behind the sport will slowly start to diminish along with the "student" aspect of being a student-athlete. Kristi Dosh, an expert in sports management says, "The issue is, if we start paying them more than the cost of attendance, are they employees? They would not be amateur anymore and it could make schools lose their nonprofit status  --  and a lot of money in donations" (Inside Story, 2014). Those who argue for the payment of these athletes claim, that since they bring in such a great amount of revenue to their respective universities, that they should be entitled to some of that money. Of those in strong support of the paying of collegiate athletes is attorney Jeffery Kessler. Kessler at the time was working on a case with four college athletes against the five power conferences (SEC, ACC, Big 10, Pac 12, and the Big 12) as well as the NCAA. In a news report with CNN Kessler passionately states, "They are pros who work without pay, and that's not fair, it's not right" (CNN, 2014). With all of the money these athletes bring in, they certainly should be entitled to benefits, but I just don't believe it should be via direct payment. Those who oppose the notion of updated compensation tend to stress how universities instead have granted athletes many other benefits to accommodate student-athletes. First off, the very nice dorms the athletes are reserved is an obvious one. I personally have seen the dorms that the athletes are granted, and compared to the on-campus living options for the average student, one can clearly see the divide. In addition to that they give free meal plans on top of many very good or full-ride scholarships. Many athletes get to attend college for free or close to it as long as they keep up with their grades. Between that, free food plans, and many other amenities, these athletes are saving a lot of money the everyday college student does not have the same luxury of. Despite that, it does not change the one simple fact that college sports is a business. Any business has its selling points, which is what the athletes are and as such should be compensated just as any other business would.

As mentioned before, there is a negative notion that paying student-athletes for their efforts would over time diminish the meaning behind the sport being played. I cannot emphasize enough how strongly I believe the meaning behind sports is of the utmost importance. I began to go down a certain road in high school that, had I not found a way out of, would have caused my life to be drastically different right now. I probably would not have made it into this amazing school or have the friends I have today. My way out was football. Junior year I was pressed to join the team, and it changed my life. It made me feel as if I was a part of something much bigger than myself. I would look around the locker room and know that I was surrounded by family. My teammates were my brothers and I have not even come close to losing contact with them thus far in college. This notion of money ruining the family aspect of the game is ridiculous. Family will always triumph over money, and family is exactly what these team sports build.

I can see the points being raised, and recognize the concerns of those with opposing views. One argument I found interesting comes from ESPN senior writer, Scoop Jackson. Jackson proclaims, "There is no system of payment that can be put in place that is fair across the board to all students, all sports and all schools that participate in college athletics." My response to this is that payments would be based off television time for athletes as well as the revenue their sport generates. For example, according to Forbes Magazine, in 2013 at the University of South Carolina, total football revenue measured out to $48,065,046. With South Carolina athletics generating around $100,000,000 in revenue, it is no secret the football team, generating nearly half of that, brings in more money than say, the men's basketball team. As such, it is reasonable that a star football player may get paid more than a star basketball player. Then there is the NCAA's go to excuse on how implementing the process of paying college athletes would be too much of a wall to climb in the current circumstances. Experts such as famous sports analyst Jay Bilas see through this facade the which NCAA would like you to believe. Bilas states, "It would be really orderly and easy ...  Players would sign contracts, they'd be bound by those contracts. They'd perform per the terms of the contracts, as would the school" (Complex Sports, 2015). Yes, there would be a lot of athletes to work out contracts with, but much of that work would be done by the individual universities. Bilas continues, "The complication of [a new system], those in charge are using it as a barrier of change. They're saying, 'It's too complicated, we can't figure it out.' But boy, they can put together a college football playoff in two seconds and make a billion dollars." Clearly, Bilas, along with many others including myself do not buy the NCAA's reasoning. However, there are those such as Ekow N. Yankah, of The New Yorker, whom strongly believe that paying student-athletes would over time do away with the loving bond that is meant to exist between an athlete and his university. Yankah argues, "Paying student athletes erodes that association [between school and athlete]. If a high-school football prodigy reported that he chose Michigan not for its academic quality, tradition, or beautiful campus but because it outbid all other suitors, a connection to the university's values would be lost. This is not naive idealism ...  Auburn fans still bristle at accusations that Cam Newton auctioned them his services; prideful Michigan fans still smart over the sanctions surrounding Chris Webber, and over stinging comments intimating that he might just as well have attended a rival school. These episodes reveal what happens when college sports are reduced to a market; that this occurs all too often already is no reason to surrender to it" (The New Yorker, 2015). Because the meaning behind sports is great to me, Yankah's argument is one that certainly sticks out. She believes athletes could start focusing too much on themselves, worrying about money, and losing sight that they are a part of something bigger than themselves. Instead, they may just become in it for themselves. 

However, I perceive what could potentially happen to athletes should they receive monetary benefits in a different light. Instead of becoming selfish, I believe they would become more motivated seeing as playing time would be a big factor in money earned over their college years. Another unique perspective is, " ... if the NCAA paid its athletes, the students would not have to add extra stress worrying about where they will get their money from. If students did not have to worry about their finances, they could spend more time focusing on their game and their classes. This helps prevent tired and burnt out athletes from underperforming on the field" (Listland, 2015). This is where alternatives such as trust funds come into play. Athletes would not be getting paid regularly, instead money would build up over their years at the university and be placed in a trust fund with the end amount earned relying on play time as well as television time. Money is almost always a motivation, even if that sounds bad. Players would work and push themselves harder in order to walk away with as much money as possible when their time at college is over. There will be a catch to these trust funds though. In order to receive their payment, the athlete must graduate from the university. Following this, they will be awarded their payment from their accumulative time on their respective team. This means an athlete cannot decide to leave school a year early in order to advance to the professional league and still seek payment for his years played at the school. It is all or nothing, and this stipulation will encourage student-athletes to stay in school, graduate, and get their degrees.  This does much more than just impact one year of an athlete's life. There have been many cases of athletes who move up to the professional league too early, are not quite ready, and watch their career crumble. In addition, the world of professional sports is a risky business for any athlete. We as spectators see time and time again that anything can happen, and these professional athletes are putting their bodies on the line on a weekly or even daily basis. Career ending injuries can unfortunately happen to anyone, even those who think they are invincible. But what happens when that buried thought, becomes a reality? As sad as leaving your dream behind would be, having graduated college gives you an edge trying to find a new job and way to provide for yourself and loved ones. The importance of education trumps all and goes much further than just a means to land a job, it is a necessity of life. 

If the trust fund alternative is not enough to tilt nay-sayers of considering being okay with student-athletes receiving money, perhaps the story of Jake McDonough will. McDonough is a defensive lineman for the National Football League and has been a part of both the New York Jets and Indianapolis Colts' organizations. The former All-Big 12 First Team defensive lineman out of Iowa State shared his college financial struggle story with a Vice Sports journalist. "As a high school senior, I thought nothing of signing my life away to keep playing football. Looking back, it seems silly to let a school use the success of a player to promote the school with their picture, jersey, poster, etc. without giving that athlete something in return" (Vice Sports, 2014).  With just one sentence, McDonough sums up a major part of the argument for the payment of collegiate athletes. However, his story shines much more light on the matter. Going into college, McDonough never thought he would have to worry about getting a job while being a football player. He believed as long as he performed on the field and in the classroom, his college experience would be unparalleled with no financial concerns. However, he was in for a rude awakening his sophomore year. "After my freshman year, I realized that there was no way to hold down a job while attending classes, film sessions, working out, or going to practice ...  With a scholarship check of $600/month, the cost of living on the rise, food, gas, and anything else that was needed, I had to reevaluate my stance on getting a job." With that said, balancing a job was still next to impossible for McDonough. It was his junior year though when his situation really began to head south. He and some teammates leased an apartment with rent at $500, leaving him $100 for food and gas. However, when the rent shot up, McDonough was left with only $50 for food and gas. He even applied for and was denied food stamps. McDonough summed up his situation saying, "You might say that our school is paid for, which I am very thankful for, but you can't really budget anything other than rent into your scholarship check. It feels as though we were forced into poverty. Quite a few of my teammates felt the same way."

Jake McDonough's story compelled me to reevaluate the trust fund policy previously described. Perhaps for some student-athletes the scholarships and amenities provided by the university still are not enough to maintain a healthy lifestyle due to the inability to hold a job. In response to this serious issue I have brainstormed a potential solution which I will refer to as the Trust Fund Early Access Act. This act will provide athletes who feel they do not have enough money to get by and maintain a healthy lifestyle the opportunity to obtain some of the money that builds up in their trust fund over their college years. However, there will be a formal application for access to this money that will be evaluated by the team, respective university, and the NCAA to ensure only those who need extra money receive it. The application will basically be a summarization of the athlete's current living conditions and what they believe the extra money will help them accomplish. After evaluation, if the applicant is to be granted extra money, the evaluators will meet with the athlete and determine what percentage of that year's earnings is necessary to maintain a healthy lifestyle and hold him/her over. This is only fair to these hard working athletes who dedicate so much of their college life staying true to their commitment to their sport. To disagree with this act would basically be the equivalent of wishing an unhealthy lifestyle on a struggling student-athlete. 

While trust funds are a sum of money most collegiate athletes would have to be patient in order to acquire, I do believe there is another form of payment athletes should be able to receive which would be more direct. The payment would not be from the university so perhaps those who oppose that will be more open minded towards this proposal. The payment would be in the form of endorsements from major companies heavily involved with NCAA sports such as Nike, Under Armour, Adidas, and Gatorade. Some collegiate athletes work hard enough and perform consistently at an elite enough level as to where they may become a very popular subject figure on sports television or radio broadcasts from nationally known stations such as ESPN. They can even attain a level of popularity to where they become household names. These accomplishments should entitle these few choice athletes to monetary benefits. I'll use our very own University of South Carolina as an example. Under Armour is obviously the main sponsor of USC, as any student can see the all athletes completely decked out in UA gear on the field. Even walking around campus, athletes are easily identifiable in their UA clothes respective to their sport. I believe it would be very strategic for Under Armour to endorse certain big name athletes or even full teams for advertisements. They should take these household name athletes and use in them in commercials or even just small web advertisements. As a result, these athletes should be able to accept money from these endorsements. When considering a brand such as Under Armour, based on how they commonly use clips of full teams practicing or competing in their advertisements, it would be easier to feature a team in its entirety. This means all players from the organization would benefit financially. A brand such as Gatorade would more likely focus on individual athletes of different sports based on their recent trend of advertisements. Not only would this be financially rewarding for a collegiate athlete, but the experience would be rewarding as well. It's very likely that they would be featured in the same commercial as professionals and could gain valuable insight. The concept of endorsements would be very fair to the college athletes, as well as inspirational for young children and high school athletes who look up to them and love the brand, all while simultaneously maintaining the integrity of the sport.

The issue of whether or not collegiate athletes should be paid shows no sign of slowing down and will probably continue to be heavily debated for years to come. The problem seems to be that the strong majority of people are too stubborn to stray from there way of thinking. A logical solution could be resting right in front of two opposing parties, and there is a strong likelihood that both sides would disregard it and continue on arguing. In my eyes, that is how those who are against the payment of student-athletes are acting. Nowhere did I propose a form of direct, salary like payment of athletes. Instead I proposed middle ground solutions in an effort to try and get those with opposing views to better understand and accept the concept. While trust funds will compensate athletes for the years of service and dedication to their university, its main goal is to encourage student-athletes to graduate and get their degree. Endorsements' main purpose would be to reward athletes on their journey thus far as well as urge them to continue to work hard. As for the Trust Fund Early Access Act, it will only grant extra money from their own earnings to those who absolutely need it to maintain a healthy lifestyle. No one will gain access to extra funds who seeks only extra random spending money. The issue with the word "payment" is that people may think of salaries or regular paychecks, which would be wrong for collegiate athletes to receive. However, when I think of the word of "payment" in regards to student-athletes, I perceive it as a means to compensate their long term hard work and dedication to their university. The money will serve as a nice reward to start off their athletic careers. As for those who do not end up moving onto the professional level, the money will serve as a kick-start to a new chapter of opportunity in the former athlete's life. Furthermore, the proper payments of collegiate athletes is just, and should be adopted by all Division I universities. 

