The two biggest sports in college are Football and Basketball according to the NCAA, when it comes to revenue and overall views. Football in 2016 brought 879.3 million dollars in revenue for the NCAA, and just the March Madness tournament for collegiate Division 1 Men’s Basketball brought in 340 million dollars. This is all on top of deals with CBS, ESPN and other massive TV companies, that total to over 30 billion dollars in commercial and broadcasting rights. The point is, college athletics is one of the profitable businesses in the world, and yet the people right in the center of it are not being paid for they’re efforts. College athletes are the most tested and worked individuals from the ages of 18-24, they must balance school, rigorous training, and pressures from fans, parents, and coaches. They deserve to be compensated for their efforts beyond scholarships, based solely on the sheer amount of money they produce the NCAA, and the sacrifices of personal time and college experiences.

The first-time college athletes brought forth the idea of being paid was in a law suit in 1990. Lee Goldman was a sports journalist for Notre Dame athletics. He wrote on how athletics even in the 90’s and late 80’s overworked players with not enough reward. He stated that “sports came first over school, not the other way around” which in his eyes meant athletes should be paid for the thing that takes up most of their lives. The main argument of his lawsuit is classifying student athletes as employees, based on time “working” per week and cash outflow produced. “Practicing 4 hours a day every day of the week and watching film for 3 hours on Sunday tallies to 23 hours a week, not including the average of 15 hours of education on top of  it all, these young adults are investing as much time as full time employees. The difference is they don’t reap the benefits of their rewards, scholarships are amazing programs but they do not allow a college athlete to invest in their future.” Goldman lost the case but the argument manifested from there into a very controversial topic, and his original points and key analysis is still one of the main arguments on the side for paying college athletes.

The sheer amount of capital that college sports brings in is enough to turn heads, according to USAToday the top ten, only ten out of three-hundred and forty-seven D1 colleges, range in revenue from 125.7 million up to 212.6 million dollars. This is only football. Disagreeing with the reference of students as “employees” is understandable as they have scholarships as a form of “compensation”, however when the money is taken in and then student’s personal life and sacrifices are also factored in, that’s where the majority of the force behind trying to get college athletes payed comes from. It’s easier to read data on a stat sheet and look at scholarships as a fair payment. Number for numbers, a full-ride scholarship to a massive D1 school averages 86,407$ according to USAToday. That’s a sizable chunk of money for students and the parents that would have had to pay their tuition. Where the majority of dispute comes in is when a student, for example, cannot join a Greek organization, cannot see their friends until after practice, cannot rest between classes when there is an exam or essay due. The dispute comes in when the personal sacrifices that these young adults make comes to light, on top of the money they bring to their organization.

John Klernan wrote a popular press article on WalletHub with eight opinions from professors and professionals on both sides of the argument. From a firsthand perspective, professors have the most views into a student athlete’s life other than the actual student and possibly their coaches. “These individuals work harder than almost every other student, at least the ones who want to, and the sacrifices in time they put in should be met with benefits. I disagree with the employee comparison because colleges should be working for the students, not the other way around, however investing in their futures by earning money through the facet that takes the most of their time is a novel ideal.” Quoted from Charles Blanche, chemistry professor from Penn State. So, college athletes maintain the same academic commitments as regular students, on top of a rigorous schedule. Looking back on a viral video just recently this week Luke Maye, forward for the UNC Tar Heels basketball team hit a game winner in this year’s march madness in a thrilling matchup with Kentucky. The viral video wasn’t the shot, although that was also very popular, no the video was him taking a standing ovation in his 8AM class the following morning, less than 12 hours and a five hour flight from the game the previous night.

The main opposing views on the subject are against calling players employees, and saying that scholarships are enough compensation for the efforts put forth by college athletes. "Remunerating these young people makes them employees, not students. Colleges and universities should work for them, not the reverse. Many student athletes receive scholarships to help pay for their education. They may be exploited by over-zealous coaches who overwork them, TV networks that impose game scheduling that interferes with academic time, and outdated NCAA rules that prohibit athletes from taking jobs. But it is the NCAA’s and school administrators’ responsibility to protect, not abuse them.” - Howard P. Chudacoff, Brown University. The employee stance is pretty controversial, however it doesn’t ave to stop players from getting compensated.

Despite pointing out the numerous sacrifices college athletes give, a rebuttal to the employee argument is for the organization to not pay college athletes, but instead allow them their own endorsements. "The way I look at this issue is that college athletes should not be prevented from being paid. Putting aside whether universities should be footing the bill, the NCAA shouldn’t restrict the kinds of benefits and remuneration that college athletes might be able to earn in the marketplace. That is, athletes should be free to sign endorsement deals with Under Armour or do endorsements for the local car dealership. The analogy would be to a performance arts major acting in a commercial or performing in the local symphony. The university doesn’t pay these students, but they are not restricted from being compensated by outside parties for their talent and work." Shawn Klein is a philosophy Instructor at Arizona State University and a well versed sports blogger, his different approach to paying players is a conclusive “middle ground” for the anti-employee argument against paying athletes.

The other take is that scholarships are enough for athletes. It is true that a scholarship is a very sizable and distinguished reward for playing sports, however it doesn’t invest in the future of players. Yes, an education is technically an investment in the future, however actually having work experience, and an understanding of money, earning and saving it, is crucial for young adults. Most athletes cannot balance a job on top of their already chaotic lives, making sports a source of income will at least help give them an understanding on how to correctly use money. "Most high- profile college athletes really have very little leverage in a genuine job market. A full grant-in-aid provides both direct and indirect resources from which one can pursue significant, substantive educational and professional goals. Its attractiveness stands out when one considers the financial challenges and loan debts that face most of the nation’s college students.” John R. Thelin, University of Kentucky. While it is true student loans are a massive problem to young adults, it’s the lack of experience that athletes will have out of college that warrants paying them. They will not have the debt others have, but they will also not have savings, job experience and investments lined up.

The last argument in WalletHub’s piece against paying athletes comes from Sharon Kay Professor and Director of the Center for ETHICS at University of Idaho, where she quotes "I believe that paying athletes who have no notion of the importance or the value of education presently would only make these sexy- sport athletes even more lost in the quest for an education." This view is interesting, however professors on the other side of the argument believe that using sports as a source of income will lift a burden off the backs of these young adults. Not having to pay for college is incredible, but being unable to afford a decent dinner due to a lack of income is in poor taste.

One case that comes up is Jameis Winston, pro NFL Quarterback, who was caught stealing food from a grocery store in college. His defense was that he had no job and no money, he admitted that having a full scholarship was amazing, however he had no time to make money on the side of sports. This does not justify stealing, however it brings to light the significance of not being able to get a job.