As of 2006, the NCAA has made an average of about $1 billion every year on college athletics. College athletics brings in around $12 billion annually, with 10% coming from marketing and TV deals, and the rest coming from merchandise sales and student fees. 

Jim Harbaugh, head football coach of the Michigan Wolverines, makes an astonishing $9 million dollars a year as a base salary. The athletes on each and every one of these teams makes a whopping zero dollars. The majority of people see this as a problem, but the opinion of what type of reform will have the most success is the main issue. There are three most popular sides of the debate. The first of which is even though college athletes are not given a salary like professional athletes, they are compensated in other ways like scholarships, free clothing and travel, and the lessons they learn by playing their sports at a high amateur level. The second stance is that the NCAA has changed that now college athletes, especially for men’s college basketball and football, are no longer amateur athletes. They deserve salaries like the professional athletes because the way they are marketed, sold, and commercialized by the NCAA has changed the way they are perceived and treated. The last method is the method of reform that this paper is going to argue for. The first point is that these athletes are not professionals, so they should not make money like the pros. However, they are also not normal students, so no reform is also not the right answer.  The reform that should be taken is that all athletes are given a weekly stipend with a set amount, and stars of their sports could be given larger compensation once they leave school. This action compensates athletes fairly, but it also feasible unlike the salary payment of athletes. 

In 2015, U.S. Colleges rewarded athletes 3.3 billion dollars in scholarships. Players are given copious amounts of clothing, supplements, and travel, all for free. Seth Davis, from Sports Illustrated, argues that college athletes are already paid. He explains that, “Student-athletes earn free tuition, which over the course of four years can exceed $200,000. They are also provided with housing, textbooks, food and academic tutoring. When they travel to road games, they are given per diems for meals” (si.com). He, like many others who are anti-reform in college athletics, believes that the privileges athletes earn already is equivalent to being paid.  Besides  already earning scholarships, there is fear paying athletes would undermine academics.  Paul Daugherty, former professor at the University of Cincinnati, argues that many of his students that he was teaching would fall asleep in class because they were working night jobs just to try to afford textbooks. Not to mention they are in debt for going to school there. He argues that college is a privilege and not a right, and to pay athletes would be undermining the value of academics(www.si.com). 

The second stance is that college athletics have evolved so greatly for men’s basketball and football that athletes in these sports need to be paid like professionals. Meaning they sign contracts instead of scholarship agreements, and have money they can spend however they so choose. Jay Bilas, a former men’s basketball player at the University of Duke and ESPN analysist, is in favor of this style of reform within the NCAA. In an interview with Complex Magazine he states, “In any facet of college life, only one class of people have any financial restriction on them at all and that’s athletes. So, the idea that it's based on education is a lie. No other student is told what they can and cannot make, and if it affects their education, or scholarship, or anything” (Complex Magazine). He is explaining how athletes are restricted financially because of NCAA rules that prohibit them from accepting any form of compensation.  He argues that because athletes are the one’s making the money for their schools, they should be able to use the money earned however they choose. He wants them to be paid for the work that they put in. 

This point of view is the most feasible, logical, and sound of all the viewpoints. These student athletes are no longer regular students, and can no longer be treated as such. The universities, students, teachers, fans, and NCAA all treat them differently than normal students. Therefore, their cases must be looked at differently. College athletes deserve to be compensated for the way they are marketed and sold. However, giving these athletes large salaries would promote an unfair advantage to schools with large programs, and also lose some of the amateur aspect of the sport. To prevent this, a weekly stipend should be given rather than a salary. Huge stars like the “Cam Newton’s” and “Johnny Manziel’s” can receive a larger compensation once they graduate and are no longer an athlete at their universities. This is to ensure that fair compensation is given, but also keep fair competition alive. 

The first argument that is presented in the introductory paragraph is the viewpoint of athletes are already paid with numerous scholarships, travel, and other amenities that other students cannot receive. It is argued that these free privileges are enough to cover the cost that college athletes are desiring. However, the truth is these scholarships do not cover all academic costs that are necessary to becoming a successful student. In Forward Progress- An Analysis of Whether Student-Athletes Should be Paid, the author Christopher Parent explains why the scholarships need to be raised to pay for personal expenses. He explains that athletic scholarships are about 3000 dollars short of paying for school expenses, and college athletes do not have time to work during their seasons. Schools are not allowed to give athletes extra money for personal expenses, as it is in violation of NCAA rules.  If the NCAA argues that academics are the main reason as to why athletes should be going to college, they need to give them a stipend to cover the cost of textbooks, and other school supplies. The travel time during the sports season prohibits many of these athletes to get a job. Their seasons are hindering them from being able to hold onto jobs, and it is the NCAA’s fault. Parent states that 58% of college athletes are living below the poverty line, so they do not have money to spend on the extra costs of academics. A stipend that is directly put to use for academics is a way for the NCAA to show that academics actually does come first. 

The next issue as to why college athletes need to be paid is that college athletics have shifted to a billion-dollar business. These athletes’ performances are sold and profited off of. Unpaid Professionals by Andrew Zimbalist discusses how universities have shifted from colleges with sports teams, to athletic programs with schools affiliated with them. He gives a timeline from the 1950s to the 1990s of why college sports have become more commercialized, explaining how TV deals have changed the popularity of the sport. He uses his sons as an example to prove that this shift has happened. Zimbalist discusses how his sons, “announced they wanted to go to the University of Michigan”, but they knew, “nothing of Michigan’s fine academic reputation” (Zimbalist X). They only wanted to go because, “Michigan had appeared in the NCAA basketball finals” (Zimbalist X). They saw the commercials for the team, the players wearing the jerseys, and watched them on television. Like most children, they probably asked for a Michigan Jersey with their favorite player’s name on the back. Merchandise is sold with player’s names on the back, but the players themselves receive no compensation. They are filmed for commercials, forced to speak in interviews, and are all over sports channels. Yet they receive no money for their product. 

A famous court case occurred in 2014 titled the O’Bannon Case, in which Edward O’Bannon took the NCAA to court for potential violations in anti-trust laws. O’Bannon was a former NCAA Division I’s Men’s Basketball Player at the University of California, Los Angeles, who started on the 1995 Championship team. He filed a lawsuit in 2009 against the NCAA stating that they violated antitrust laws by selling video games with players in the game with likeness to the actual players without their permission. The game featured a UCLA player who played the same position as O’Bannon, who matched his height, hair, weight, jersey number, and had the same left-handed shot as O’Bannon.  On August 8, 2014, it was ruled that the NCAA had violated anti-trust laws by failing to compensation these athletes by using their likeness in video game characters without their permission. The judge ordered that schools be able to offer scholarships that cover the full cost of attendance, and ones that covered cost of living expenses, which was not previously offered. The judge “also ruled that colleges be permitted to place as much as $5,000 into a trust for each athlete per year of eligibility”. Electronic Arts, who were the original creators for the game, settled for a $40 million-dollar settlement. They no longer make NCAA Football games because of this case. However, no real reform was made within the NCAA. The game development has been stopped, but that does not solve the larger issue of the NCAA taking advantage of these young athletes. More large scale reform needs to be taken within the organization to bring about the necessary change. Any employee whose product was being sold without their permission would not settle for little pay, let alone no pay.

 College athletes still are not able to be compensated for being sold by the NCAA, and many still struggle to pay for things like food. In 2014, Shabazz Napier, starting point guard of the 2014 National Champions University of Connecticut Men’s Basketball Team, told reporters, “I don't feel student-athletes should get hundreds of thousands of dollars, but like I said, there are hungry nights that I go to bed and I'm starving” (www.cnn.com). This is an obvious problem within the NCAA as they are exploiting 18-22 year old young adults for millions of dollars. Even so,  they refuse to give them a small weekly stipend so that these athletes can sleep without their stomach growling. The issue of compensation is more than just an issue of athletes being greedy, it has become one of an ethical and moral dilemma. 

The second viewpoint of reform mentioned earlier wants to see college athletes be given large salaries like professional players, and for the athletes to be able to use their money for however they choose. There are a few flaws for this type of reform, and it would cause obvious unfairness between the schools within competition. Schools with the most money would have an unfairness when it comes to bidding for recruits. Alabama, Notre Dame, and USC football programs have much more money to spend on recruits, compared to schools like Western Kentucky, Eastern Carolina, and other smaller Division I Universities. Schools with the most money would be the most successful, and this would eliminate some of the competitiveness of college athletics that fans love. Boosters would begin to pour more and more money into their school’s athletics program to use to pay recruits. How would the NCAA keep fairness within the sport? Could only schools pay the players? Or could they become sponsored like professional players with many endorsements? Could these endorsements sway athletes to only go to certain schools? These are some important questions that would need to answered. If large salaries were implemented, it would put an end to fairness and fair competition outside of the few schools who can afford to pay their athletes like the NFL and NBA do. Not to mention this is an extremely expensive type of reform, which the NCAA will want to avoid. 

The next issue with this approach to reform is that if colleges are forced to pay large amounts to these athletes, there will be cuts elsewhere within the schools. The first programs that will be cut are other sports teams. Sports like wrestling and volleyball that bring in less money  will be cut, simply because the school will have less money to fund them after giving their new recruit a multi-million contract. The evidence for this is already in high schools, as any high school athlete of a less popular sport can testify that football and basketball teams were the ones to get the best uniforms, supplements, and most recognition. The next thing to be cut within the schools are  some of the educational programs. Some schools might be forced to cut whole programs all together. This is an unacceptable approach, as other student’s success and learning experience would now be affected. A compromise must be taken so that all students can have a productive college experience, but also that athletes are not taken advantage of. This is more evidence that points to the use of using a stipend. 

The last major evidence for reform is that athletes are continually violating NCAA regulations, even though the punishments for these violations are severe for both the athlete and their school. Ronald Smith in his book discusses how athletes continually violate NCAA rules to gain small sums of money, even though the punishment for these cases are severe. He argues that this is direct evidence for reform (Smith 45-56). These athletes are no longer there for education, competition, or desire. They want to make money as soon as they can because they feel they deserve it. They are the ones risking their health for their schools every week. Records, trophies, or awards mean nothing to many athletes playing at that high of a level.  Athletes are no longer concerned with the punishment, they just want to be compensated.

To conclude, the most feasible, logical, and fair method of reform would be to raise scholarships to cover all academic costs, including textbooks and other materials that would aid in academic success for athletes. Also, give them a set stipend to aid in other costs of living expenses(like food, utilities, etc.). College athletics has become so commercial nowadays as visible by Zimbalist’s children’s fascination with the University of Michigan and the Ed O’Bannon Court Case that it would be unfair to not give them some type of money. Raise the scholarships to cover all academic costs to help promote the importance of academics, and also give them a set stipend for extra payment for how much money the schools are making off of these athletes. This set stipend would eliminate the unfair advantage million dollar salaries would give to larger programs, and it would also keep the other students education experience safe and secure. Reform must take place within the NCAA so that the athletes are no longer taken advantage of, but it must be done in this way so it does not blur the line between professional or student athlete, and so that the other students of the University also have enjoyable college experiences.
