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 most 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, academics, 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.” The point he makes is valid in the fact that putting so much time towards an experience that doesn’t benefit you financially makes no sense.  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.

Not only are those scholarships not enough, not every athlete is paid the same or at all. Now the argument can be made that if an athlete did not receive a scholarship then they are not at the highest level and therefore should not be paid. Walking on is a commitment brought upon yourself as an athlete, however the chances of earning a scholarship by proving yourself attract many players. So now there is a student who devotes an incredible amount of time and effort into a sport at a chance to get one of those scholarships, which isn’t enough as it is. However, if an athlete were to be paid, they can chase their dreams of playing in the next level, continuing being a part of the sport they love, going after that scholarship, or whatever their reason or goals may be, all the while being financial secure.

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. I agree with the following quote in the respects that comparatively, effort put forth demands reward. People work hard at things they are passionate about, and they are passionate about whatever it is because it rewards them. Sometimes the reward is just happiness, but the effort that college athletes give to their schools should be rewarded with a tangible asset that provides them a future. “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 home 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. Professor Chudacoff makes an excellent rebuttal to the employee argument using facts that show the commitment these players have deserves more. His use of NCAA rules preventing players getting jobs is a serious issue. Money isn’t just about buying, it’s also about investing and saving. These players aren’t getting any monetary experience as they enter the adult chapter of their lives, where money matters most. The employee stance is pretty controversial; however it doesn’t have to stop players from getting compensated.

Despite pointing out the numerous sacrifices college athletes give, an answer to the employee argument is for the organization to not pay college athletes, but instead allow them their own endorsements. This take is interesting because it takes away the “students shouldn’t work for college” argument by factoring in a new payment system. Instead of the school playing players, allow them to make money at a “job” of sorts that doesn’t interfere with school or sports. "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. Not being prepared for the future at the college level is terrifying. College is the last bridge between here and the “adult” world. People mve out, get a job, and live on their own in most cases. Athletes that have never had a job will have no idea how to control money. Saving money is a difficult task for anyone, however without any experience in monetary functions these athletes are financially uninformed. They very well can do good in school with extremely hard work, and get a job, but it’s not just getting a job it’s about being financially capable. 

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. There are many cases of players of layers complaining about hunger due to the lack of money they have.

Another such case was UCONN basketball star Shabazz Napier who; when questioned about being payed answered: “We do have hungry nights that we don't have enough money to get food in. Sometimes money is needed. I don't think you should stretch it out to hundreds of thousands of dollars for playing, because a lot of times guys don't know how to handle themselves with money. I feel like a student athlete. Sometimes, there's hungry nights where I'm not able to eat, but I still gotta play up to my capabilities.” He hits a large number of the main points in the argument for paying players previously discussed. Whether it’s not being financially able due to commitment or NCAA rules, or not being even financially capable of handling money. Napier played in the national championship game a week after this quote. That championship game was played in AT&T Stadium, where 79,000 people paid an average of about $500 to watch the Final Four games from seats where they needed binoculars to see the action. Broadcasted on CBS, the total revenue was $800 million a year for the right to show the NCAA Tournament to the schools. as previously stated the NCAA tourney is among one of the most profitable things in college sports. And here's one of the star players on one of the teams in its most important game saying he can't eat sometimes, that bolsters a problem. The article after this quote stated: Some will point out that Napier is getting free access to a degree. He's not getting paid, but he's getting an education while other students are saddled with debt -- how could he ask for more? 

Oh, wait: 

But UConn's graduation rate for male basketball players is still the worst of any team in the 2014 tournament. UConn graduates 8 percent of its players, according to the most recent NCAA statistics. To put it another way: of the 12 players who started as freshmen eight years ago, exactly one managed to finish a college degree or leave UConn in good academic standing. I suppose in a hypothetical world where every college athlete got a meaningful education, I would understand a system where athletes didn't receive any monetary compensation. Instead, we have hungry players at schools that sometimes fail to even put in enough effort to cook up diplomas, and NCAA leadership that accuses players of greed while raking in billions. One of the paramount points throughout this whole paper and issue is the sacrifices. Socially and personally. Those two sacrifices were expanded on and discussed, yet academical sacrifices play an extreme role in the lives of athletes. It can be due to the channels of communication that these players must use. It can be hard enough as a student in college, but as an athlete players talk through coaches, personal trainers, teammates, for questions like “when is practice?”. All the while through the academic communications such as teachers, advisors, TA’s, topics like “when is my meeting?” become much harder to balance. Given some of the college athlete graduations rates, it seems scholarships really aren’t all the benefit they say they are, and now I kid who went to college for free has no money and a lack of the tools needed to make it in the post-college world. 

Understanding the stance against an argument is the best way to prove your side is correct in your eyes. Paying college athletes is a topic that requires loads of details and data, interviews and hot takes, to figure out. The end result is this: student athletes are workhorses, they put in maximum effort without substantial reward, and that’s not fair. Scholarships don’t show kids how to manage money, they don’t provide monetary intelligence they just allow these students to leave college debt free but incapable financially. The inane amount of sacrifices made by these athletes affect their lives personally, socially, and academically. On top of it all, these players fuel one of the most profitable businesses on planet earth, they generate enough cash to be paid some of it. The current compensation plan is not adequate, college athletes should be paid.
