College athletics have become a central part of American culture. From March Madness to college football, Americans have found themselves spending endless hours and dollars in an attempt to satisfy their need for excitement. The money being generated from college sports has begun to rival professional sports. However, there are three key differences between the two American sports entities. Professional athletes are well - known for being paid large sums of money, and living lavish lifestyles that only the elite can enjoy. On the other hand, college athletes are known for living in average college dorms and still relying on their parents for financial support. The reason for this discrepancy lies in foundation of college sports. Former athletes have begun a movement of legal action in order to support the movement of Pay for Play in an effort to give college athletes what they deserve. The idea that coaches, school presidents, and other high ranking officials are the ones benefiting from these kids has left a bad taste in the mouths of many. Given the increasing revenue, and years of discussion on this matter, I believe it is time that we as the consumers take a stand. The NCAA has hidden behind the curtain of amateurism for too long.   

This all started on a summer day in 1852, Harvard and Yale took to the waters of Lake Winnipesaukee to compete in what would become one of the most iconic athletic events in the history of our great nation. Unfortunately for Yale, a premature challenge ended with Harvard being named the victor of the race, and was given a set of black walnut oars as its prize. By 1864, this race became an annual event, and would be a heated rivalry for centuries to come. To this day, The Regatta as it is known is anticipated by fans every single year. This decision by Yale to challenge Harvard would become the beginning of college sports as we know it today. In the beginning college athletics were formed by students, and for students. The creation of athletic clubs was to allow students to identify themselves with similar students, and put in work outside of the classroom. This idea is best illustrated by Smith’s quote from Walter Camp, which read, “Neither the faculties nor other critics assisted in building the structure of college athletics, it is a structure which students unaided have builded.” (8) Smith. However, as these clubs began to gain popularity, more was wanted from their participants as well as the schools. The athletes soon began challenging other schools to compete, and fan support soon became a more prominent reason for notoriety. For a time, the athletes themselves were responsible for reforms and all was well. As always, the days of tranquility did not last. The student committees that voted on reforms found it difficult to balance school, and agree upon the rules and regulations that were needed for a level playing field. It was in this moment that schools began to step in.  

The reality of students having control would be short lived.  As the sport grew, schools took an interest, and faculty members were appointed to participate in reforms along with the students as they could no longer handle it on their own. This interference into college athletics soon turned into the creation of The Western Conference/Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representative (The Big Ten Conference) by Purdue University President James H. Smart. As stated by Smith, the purpose of this was “to establish common eligibility rules, curb practices detrimental to amateur sport, and maintain the positive values of college sport” (Smith 13). James H. Smart was responsible for the initial establishment of schools taking control over their students including their extra-curricular activities. Year later further action would be taken; On March 31, 1906 the NCAA would be created. The NCAA was formed months after President Teddy Roosevelt invited representatives from Princeton, Harvard, and Yale to discuss a plan for reform in college sports. With this measure being taken by the schools, the power of reform and rule enforcement would now lie with a separate entity with no connection to any of the schools. It is at this point in the history of college sports that college athletes truly lost control of their athletics to their school, and the NCAA. 

 Many argue that paying college athletes is neither necessary, nor required. For example, Pat Forde of ESPN said, “Even that reckoning still ignores the nonmonetized benefits of college -- maturation, socialization, enculturation, life lessons, friendships made, spouses met, and an allegiance to a place that can last a lifetime. Find a few former college athletes in their 30s or 40s and ask them about their experience. How many say they had a lousy time?” (Forde). The problem here is that the author is changing the topic, by moving people’s attention away from the true point of the argument. When the argument is made in favor of college athletes being paid it is for their constitutional rights. An athlete having a good time in college does not change the fact that they are being exploited. The idea is that athletes are claimed as the property of the NCAA, and are responsible for the $11 billion in revenue (U.S. News Edleman) generated by that same association. Meanwhile, these same athletes are penalized for attempting to make any money off of their own name whether it be selling autographs, guest appearances, and even endorsements. These athletes have been claimed by the NCAA, and are given little freedom due to the large revenue they are responsible for. Arguments such as these, or money taking away the student in their description are all a ploy in order to make the viewing public believe that things should remain how they are, and coaches should be receiving the compensation instead. 

The first area of concern regarding the NCAA refusing to pay players would be the legal infractions that are believed have been occurring. For the most part, courts have been uninvolved when it comes to college athletics. This reality is made possible by the clever use of misinformation, which is best illustrated by Leroy when he says, “college athletics is defined as an amateur enterprise in furtherance of academic goals set by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (‘NCAA’), the umbrella group for more than 1,200 universities and colleges” (477). This definition of college athletics allows the NCAA to prohibit students from receiving rights that would be afforded to employees, such as the right to unionize, and the right to negotiate fair compensation, which are present in the close related professional leagues. The NCAA has managed to distance its operations from that of professional sports despite the unarguable similarities as Karcher presents the following ideas “Historically courts recognized a quasi-property right of professional teams to sell the right to broadcast their games; however, team owners put personal funds at risk and are entitled to full ownership of the copyright to the broadcast under the work made for hire doctrine as they pay the players a proportionate share of the rights fees. The putative quasi-property right of NCAA member institutions has gone unchallenged despite the fact that (1) they are tax exempt public institutions lacking the same economic investment and incentive, (2) the rights fees continue to climb at astronomical rates while the grant-in-aid remains stagnant, and (3) the work made for hire doctrine does not protect the entitlement because the players are not employees.” (107); these accusations against the 

The NCAA has had several law suits filed against them. This first suit, O’Bannon vs. NCAA, was filed in response to students having to sign away their NIL (name in likeness) in order to participate in college sports no matter the popularity or division. This essentially allowed the NCAA to use a student’s likeness in any way shape or form as long as it was connected to a sporting event. This clause was found to be in violation of U.S. law according to Lush’s research, “Prior to the litigation, NCAA bylaws prohibited schools from paying student athletes anything beyond full grant-in-aid scholarships. According to Judge Claudia Wilken, however, the NCAA rules that prohibit further payments violate the Sherman Antitrust Act and unlawfully restrain trade.” (769). Given the ruling of unlawful activity, an injunction was issued by Judge Wilken in an attempt to correct the wrongdoings the students were forced to endure. Furthermore, a second case, Alston vs. NCAA, saw former West Virginia running back file a class action lawsuit due to the NCAA violating anti-trust laws. The allegations in respect to this case further exemplify the greed that the NCAA and the universities have displayed. Shawne Alston, quoted by Rickman, accused the NCAA of agreeing “agreeing to cap the value of athletic scholarships below the actual cost of attending school and 'far below' what the free market would produce.”Rickman. This accusation makes the public believe that not only are they withholding compensation from players, but also colluding in order to milk the athletes for tuition that should already be covered. These lawsuits have shown us that people are willing to break U.S. law in order to retain as much net profit from their product as they can. The NCAA has assumed complete ownership of this copyright, has violated anti-trust laws, and has colluded in order to cap the value of scholarships. All this has been done while refusing to compensate their should-be employees in order to uphold the integrity of college sports. 

The second area of concern regarding the pay for play movement is the effect it has had on the importance and effectiveness of academics. Student athletes are no longer students first. They are required to focus the majority of their time and attention on sports instead of academics. Given this, the scholarships given out for college athletes may no longer be worth it due to the fact that the education they receive is severely compromised in most cases. There have been many instances in which athletes have complained about the lack of attention being given to their education. This can be attributed to eligibility constraints, and the time and effort needed to compete in these sports. Several law suits and controversies exemplify this growing concern. 

Colter vs. Northwestern saw a number of football players petition the National Labor Board to grant them permission to unionize. Patrick Vint of SB states, “Colter essentially argued that he was a professional football player for Northwestern, and that his education was a secondary concern. Northwestern countered with ample evidence to show that it takes academics seriously, an argument that could have begun and ended with, "We're Northwestern." The NLRB decision is still pending. The students are placed at an extreme disadvantage in a situation such as this. The school is able to show the records of the student signing up for classes which is good enough to prove that he is a regular full time student. In addition, the school is able to use its reputation as a good school to bolster its argument that they take academics very seriously. However, there is a reason a student will feel this way, and it would not be due to the school taking his education seriously. This is a clear example of how schools have been able to manipulate the system in order to short change an athlete’s education. 

Another instance of academic dishonesty according to time.com, “The University of North Carolina and Syracuse are just two of the most recent universities to be under the spotlight for academic scandals involving student athletes. UNC offered a “no show” class for student athletes (where students received grades for phantom classes that they didn’t attend), and Syracuse allowed academically ineligible athletes to compete. And while these cases are the ones currently grabbing headlines, they are hardly unique; The Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting that 20 additional schools are being investigated for academic fraud.” Time.com. These incidents show universities’ willingness to break rules in order for their athletes to be eligible to compete, and be in top form to compete with minimal distractions. According tp SB Nations quote from to Richard Sherman of the Seattle Seahawks “You wake up in the morning, you have weights at this time. Then after weights you go to class and after class, you go maybe try to grab you a quick bite to eat. Then after you get your quick bite to eat, you go straight to meetings and after meetings, you've got practice”. This statement from the Stanford graduate proves that even at an elite academic school college athletes are given no time to focus on school. There is an ongoing concern when it comes to the lack of attention given to the student part of student athlete.

 According to SB Nation, student athletes are more likely to get lower grades as well as take easier classes. Schools’ willingness to provide their athletes with these options and in some cases require these options are causing athletes to miss out on the education that their scholarship is paying for. Time and time again we hear of instances related to made up classes, giving passing grades, and disregarding attendance. One would think that the NCAA would step in and stop the use of these illegal practices. However, the problem here is that the NCAA makes its money off these same student athletes. A drop in fan interest due to suspension is harmful to the schools, and the NCAA’s bottom line. The separate entity that is supposed to enforce and create rules is also benefiting from these practices. In order to have any chance at saving the education of college athletes, the NCAA must be put in check and they must be disallowed from earning revenue. Without these measures, there will continue to be coinciding interests and exploitation of the athletes. 

Supporters of college sports have been deceived into believing outlandish claims made by those who are being paid. We have been made to believe that the cost of attending college is enough compensation when in reality athletes are given a real education. We have been made to believe that the NCAA cannot be compared to professional sports, and college sports are still a nonprofit business. Worst of all, no one has stood up to make things right for those who risk their lives for our entertainment. The people of America have a responsibility as human beings to make things right, and allow people to be rewarded for hard work. In addition, those with platforms to do so have a legal obligation to take action with the U.S. justice system as there is a multitude of evidence to use. As education becomes less and less important when discussing college athletes, the tipping point is coming closer. Action will, and must be taken in order to make an example of the imperfect acts that capitalism can create. The numerous lawsuits, incidents of academic dishonesty, and additional issues are clear signs of the immoral operations of the NCAA. College sports have become professional sports except for the facts that the employees have no rights to speak of. 

   