# data[].attributes.body
c october 2 2019
r it dose agreee with my statement
a it is from student news
a i did noy see any grammer or spelling errors
p it preswades me tp fight for collage athlets to be paied

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(by David K. Li, NBC News) - [Defying the NCAA, California's governor signed a first-in-the-nation law Monday that will let college athletes hire agents and make money from endorsements - a move that could upend amateur sports in the U.S. and trigger a legal challenge.].

The legislation, which takes effect in 2023, allows student-athletes to sign endorsement deals and prohibits the governing body of college sports, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and the schools from [revoking scholarships or] banning those compensated athletes.

NCAA rules strictly prohibit athletes from profiting in any way from their sports, and the law would still bar schools from directly paying athletes.

"Colleges reap billions from student athletes but block them from earning a single dollar. That's a bankrupt model," Gov. Newsom tweeted after signing the bill.

The NCAA acknowledged in a statement Monday that its current regulations on amateurism will need to change, but said California's new law won't help.

"As a membership organization, the NCAA agrees changes are needed to continue to support student-athletes but improvement needs to happen on a national level through the NCAA's rules-making process," the governing body said. ...

Newsom signed the bill while appearing on NBA icon LeBron James' HBO show, "The Shop: Uninterrupted." [James' 14-year-old son is a closely watched basketball prospect in Los Angeles and will be 18 when the measure takes effect.]

The governor predicted it would prompt dozens of other states to pass similar legislation and force the NCAA's hand.

"It's going to change college sports for the better by having now the interests finally of the athletes on par with the interests of the institutions," Newsom said. "Now we're re-balancing that power arrangement.

James, who went pro straight out of high school, urged the NCAA to come to the bargaining table and find a way to compensate athletes who generate millions of dollars, especially in football and basketball.

...While the NCAA is the governing body of college sports, membership is voluntary. So conceivably, if schools are forced out of competition by the NCAA, they could simply opt out to form their own new leagues.

Lisa Masteralexis, who teaches sports management at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said the upcoming battle on this issue could embolden high-revenue, so-called "Power 5" leagues - the Big Ten, Southeastern, Pacific-12 [see "Background" below], Big 12 and Atlantic Coast Conferences - to create their own athlete compensation packages.

And if they did so, those big-money schools and leagues could break away on their own, bumping the NCAA from the business of big-time college sports altogether.

"The power conferences have leverage," Masteralexis told NBC News shortly after Newsom signed the bill. "If you look at the Power 5 conferences, they have enough money and media attention, some with their own TV networks, they can drive the bus."

Legislation signed Monday by Newsom seemed to fall in line with the public's general view of compensating college athletes.

A Morning Consult poll published this past spring showed that Americans oppose direct school-to-athlete pay, 45 percent to 32 percent.

But when asked if student-athletes should be able to sign deals with brands, respondents said yes by 47 percent to 35 percent.

And asked if college athletes should be allowed to profit off their names or images on video games and other products, respondents again said yes by 52 percent to 31 percent.

The Golden State is home to dozens of schools that play top-flight Division I sports, including Pacific-12 Conference institutions such as the University of Southern California, Stanford University, the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of California, Berkeley.
[The NCAA, a non-profit organization, reported $1.1 billion in revenue in 2017. It's president Mark Emmert received a salary of $2.4 million in 2016]. Published at NBCNews .com on September 30, 2019. Reprinted here for educational purposes only. May not be reproduced on other websites without permission from NBC.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CA law allows college athletes to be paid for endorsements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(by David K. Li, NBC News) - [Defying the NCAA, California's governor signed a first-in-the-nation law Monday that will let college athletes hire agents and make money from endorsements - a move that could upend amateur sports in the U.S. and trigger a legal challenge.].

# data[].attributes.body
c it was made in 7/31/2018
r it dose  agree with my statment
a it is from apex sports news and othher stuff
a i did not see anr graer or slpelling isses
p it is a littel bit of entertainment and perswation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With college sports viewership at an all-time high, one popular question remains constant with each televised game: should college athletes be paid? The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) restricts and prohibits student athletes, both prospective and active, from receiving any kind of compensation.

But should college athletes get paid for the thousands, hundred thousand, sometimes even millions of dollars of gross revenue they bring to their school? There are two sides to every argument, and in such controversial cases like this it's important to understand both.

Why College Athletes Should be Paid:

A main argument why college athletes should be paid is the fact that they generate mass revenue for their schools. The last March Madness generated $70 million in gross receipts and when it was all said and done, invited schools saw $275,000 or more. This is just one sport in one segment.

While these statistics are great for universities and their athletic departments because they are bringing in lots of money to the school, it forgets about the people who did the work; the athletes. Many of the top talented athletes face hardship at home coming from urban, low-class families. These students, while fortunate to receive scholarship, face the hardship of needing to drop out to help provide for their families. If they got paid for their talent, they would be able to send money home to their families or save it for the future. Either way, they would be able to finish school, earn their degree, and potentially go pro.

Aside from personal hardships these athletes face, there's also the problem of their name and images being used to advertise and market big games which the athletes see no compensation for. College athletics has turned into a "big business" that some believe are more concerned about making money than its student athletes. The NCAA not only prohibits athletes from being paid for playing their sport, but also from receiving any outside income. Thus, if an athlete wanted to get a job, he/she could not. Considering 58% of college football and basketball players said the money they have is inadequate, this is problematic. The same sample of student athletes also said that they are not provided the education they are promised.

Because of the tight schedule of college sports regulated by the NCAA, student athletes miss class regularly for practices, promotional events, and nationally televised games. So, the scholarships they're receiving doesn't actually benefit them when it's not being put to use. This cyclical issue all goes back to the NCAA, which many believe can be resolved or eliminated through college athletes receiving payment.

According to current statistics, one could make the judgement that it does just as much good as bad. 57% of NCAA Division One members have either been censured, sanctioned, or put on probation at least once during the last decade. On top of that, there's even more undetected violations such as schools providing game tickets that sold for cash to athletes, academic fraud, and anything in between. Due to strict regulations and rules, many believe the NCAA has taken away the honest passion, integrity, and morals that college sports should entail. By breaking down the wall of these strict rules regarding payment through paying players, the current problems and scandals involving schools paying players can be partially eliminated. While logically this makes sense - paying athletes legally and regularly eliminating corruption that occurs with paying them behind closed doors - it's also a double-edged sword.

Why College Athletes Should Not be Paid:

According to recent statistics, 7% of high school athletes make it to the college level and 2% make it to the Division One level. Part of being a college athlete is the once in a lifetime opportunity; an attribute that a regular salary can take away. It is believed that if a college athlete receives regular compensation for playing, the passion for the game is lost because it becomes all about the money. This goes hand in hand with the financial difficulties of paying athletes.

At 18, 19, 20 years old, financial responsibility is generally not a priority. With that being said, the chances of college athletes spending and not saving and facing debts later in life is very high. Furthermore, while on paper it's easy to say that players would receive pay based on attributes x, y, and z, that's much harder to establish in real life. A fair, equal and legal system of pay would be very difficult to establish because of the problem of it being based on talent - how do you determine what the top defensive player earns versus what the top offensive player earns and, then everyone else? Paying athletes becomes a very slippery slope for universities and the NCAA.

The NCAA and schools would then have to deal with the issue of having heavily "stacked" teams; the best, wealthiest schools have the most money to offer college athletes, and therefore get the best athletes. The established "business" nature of college sports that would be established would also hurt non-athletes. In order to pay the athletes more, other programs within the school would have to be cut, therefore depriving other students of their opportunities. Yet another problem schools would face with paying their student athletes is the simple fact that the athletes would not be viewed as students anymore.

Most college athletes rely on the scholarship they receive to obtain an education. Without the incentive of maintaining their scholarship, college athletes may stop going to class and therefore not earn a degree to help them later in life. Secondly, a scholarship pays for the needs of the athlete from food to classes, while a salary allows them to pay for wants and at some point, money does run out. Because taxes are based on income, high taxes on the athlete's salaries could reduce their pocket earnings so much that they can't afford the tuition of the school. Thus, paying them does not necessarily mean they can still attend the university.

A crucial argument to student athletes not being paid is because their job is to be a student, not an athlete. Being an athlete and pursuing their passion for their sport is a bonus to receiving a quality, higher education. If student athletes are paid, their job becomes playing their sport, which is why professional leagues exist. College sports are a time of growth and perfecting skills to prepare for the professional leagues. Being paid as a student athlete would eliminate the incentive to take the four years to improve skills for the professional leagues.

The debate on whether or not to pay student athletes is ongoing and there's no end soon. But it's important to understand both sides; all good comes with a bad and vice versa. For every support argument there is a counterargument, but that opens a dialog to a better understanding of student athletes lives and how they can be their best.

For more exclusive content from NFL players, register with Apex today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With college sports viewership at an all-time high, one popular question remains constant with each televised game: should college athletes be paid? The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) restricts and prohibits student athletes, both prospective and active, from receiving any kind of compensation.

# data[].attributes.body
c it was made in novvember 8 2017
r it dose agre with my satement and some other stuff  as well
a i did not se any spellling ior gramer
a it is from youth voices
p it was suoer perswasive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dear Nick, After reading your article we agree that college athletes should be paid. We thought that you made a good point when you said "Between both division one and two college athletes approximately 2.9 billion dollars are given away to 150,000 NCAA college athletes."

# data[].attributes.body
c it was made in novvember 8 2017
r it dose agre with my satement and some other stuff  as well
a i did not se any spellling ior gramer
a it is from youth voices
p it was to perswade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dear Nick, After reading your article we agree that college athletes should be paid. We thought that you made a good point when you said "Between both division one and two college athletes approximately 2.9 billion dollars are given away to 150,000 NCAA college athletes."

# data[].attributes.body
c dec 30 2011
r it dose agree with my statement
a it is from nytimes
a i did not see any spelling or any grammer
p it dose most defntly perswade me

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit... Collages by Sara Cwynar

Mark Emmert, the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the almighty overseer of American college sports, likes to think of himself as a reformer. A few months ago, after he'd been on the job for a little more than a year, he pushed through a series of improvements, including slightly higher academic standards for college athletes, a full-scale review of the N.C.A.A.'s fat rule book and a new provision giving universities the option of offering four-year scholarships. The current one-year deals are, believe it or not, renewable at the discretion of coaches, who can effectively cut injured or underperforming "student athletes," as the N.C.A.A. likes to call them.

And one other thing: With Emmert's backing, the N.C.A.A.'s board of directors, composed of college and university presidents (Emmert himself is a former president of the University of Washington), agreed to make it permissible for Division I schools to pay their athletes a $2,000 stipend. When I saw Emmert in November, shortly after the new rule went into effect, I told him that the stipend struck me as a form of payment to the players. He visibly stiffened. "If we move toward a pay-for-play model - if we were to convert our student athletes to employees of the university - that would be the death of college athletics," Emmert retorted. "Then they are subcontractors. Why would you even want them to be students? Why would you care about their graduation rates? Why would you care about their behavior?" No, he insisted, the extra $2,000 was an effort to increase the value of the scholarships, which some studies estimate falls on average about $3,500 short of the full cost of attending college annually.

At the time I spoke to Emmert, high-school athletes were signing binding letters of intent to attend a university - letters that said they would get the $2,000. But over the next month, college athletic directors and conference commissioners began protesting the new stipend, claiming they couldn't afford it. Within a month, more than 125 of them had signed an "override request." And so it was that just a few weeks ago, the N.C.A.A. decided to suspend the payment. For legal reasons, those athletes who were already promised the $2,000 will most likely still get it. But any athlete granted a scholarship after the stipend was canceled may not. (The N.C.A.A. plans to review the issue on Jan. 14.) In other words, some lucky handful of incoming freshmen will be handed $2,000 without jeopardizing their status as amateurs. Yet any other college athlete who manages to get his hands on an extra $2,000 - by taking money from an overenthusiastic booster, say, or selling some of their team paraphernalia, as a few Ohio State football players did - will be violating the N.C.A.A.'s rules regarding amateurism and will probably face a multigame suspension. Behold the logic of the N.C.A.A. at work.

The hypocrisy that permeates big-money college sports takes your breath away. College football and men's basketball have become such huge commercial enterprises that together they generate more than $6 billion in annual revenue, more than the National Basketball Association. A top college coach can make as much or more than a professional coach; Ohio State just agreed to pay Urban Meyer $24 million over six years. Powerful conferences like the S.E.C. and the Pac 12 have signed lucrative TV deals, while the Big 10 and the University of Texas have created their own sports networks. Companies like Coors and Chick-fil-A eagerly toss millions in marketing dollars at college sports. Last year, Turner Broadcasting and CBS signed a 14-year, $10.8 billion deal for the television rights to the N.C.A.A.'s men's basketball national championship tournament (a k a "March Madness"). And what does the labor force that makes it possible for coaches to earn millions, and causes marketers to spend billions, get? Nothing. The workers are supposed to be content with a scholarship that does not even cover the full cost of attending college. Any student athlete who accepts an unapproved, free hamburger from a coach, or even a fan, is in violation of N.C.A.A. rules.

This glaring, and increasingly untenable, discrepancy between what football and basketball players get and what everyone else in their food chain reaps has led to two things. First, it has bred a deep cynicism among the athletes themselves. Players aren't stupid. They look around and see jerseys with their names on them being sold in the bookstores. They see 100,000 people in the stands on a Saturday afternoon. During the season, they can end up putting in 50-hour weeks at their sports, and they learn early on not to take any course that might require real effort or interfere with the primary reason they are on campus: to play football or basketball. The N.C.A.A. can piously define them as students first, but the players know better. They know they are making money for the athletic department. The N.C.A.A.'s often-stated contention that it is protecting the players from "excessive commercialism" is ludicrous; the only thing it's protecting is everyone else's revenue stream. (The N.C.A.A. itself takes in nearly $800 million a year, mostly from its March Madness TV contracts.) "Athletes in football and basketball feel unfairly treated," Leigh Steinberg, a prominent sports agent, says. "The dominant attitude among players is that there is no moral or ethical reason not to take money, because the system is ripping them off."

It's a system that enables misconduct to flourish. The abuse scandals that have swirled around Penn State football and Syracuse basketball. The revelation that a University of Miami booster - now in prison, convicted of running a Ponzi scheme - provided dozens of Miami football players with money, cars and even prostitutes. The Ohio State merchandise scandal that cost the coach, Jim Tressel, his job. The financial scandal at the Fiesta Bowl that led to the firing of its chief executive and the indictment of another top executive.

Another consequence of this economic discrepancy between the players and everyone else, though, is the increasingly loud calls for reform. Not the kind of reform that Emmert talks about - change that nibbles around the edges, while trying to maintain the illusion that college football and men's basketball players are merely partaking in an extracurricular activity like theater or the chess club. That illusion was shattered long ago, surely. "The huge TV contracts and excessive commercialization have corrupted intercollegiate athletics," says Brit Kirwan, the chancellor at the University of Maryland system. "To some extent they have compromised the integrity of the universities."

The new breed of reformers, whose perspective I share, believes that the only way the major sports schools can achieve any integrity is to end the hypocrisy and recognize that college football and men's basketball are big businesses. Most of these new reformers love college sports - as do I. They realize that having universities in charge of a major form of American entertainment is far from ideal, but they are also realistic enough to know that scaling back big-time college sports is implausible, given the money at stake. Instead, the best approach is to openly acknowledge their commercialization - and pay the work force. This is, by now, a moral imperative. The historian Taylor Branch, who in October published a lengthy excoriation of the N.C.A.A. in The Atlantic, comparing it to "the plantation," was only the most recent voice to call for players to be paid. Like most such would-be reformers, however, he didn't offer a way to go about it.

That's what I'm setting out to do here. Over the last few months, in consultation with sports economists, antitrust lawyers and reformers, I put together the outlines of what I believe to be a realistic plan to pay those who play football and men's basketball in college. Although the approach may appear radical at first glance, that's mainly because we've been brainwashed into believing that there's something fundamentally wrong with rewarding college athletes with cold, hard cash. There isn't. Paying football and basketball players will not ruin college sports or cause them to become "subcontractors." Indeed, given the way big-time college sports are going, paying the players may be the only way to save them.

There are five elements to my plan. The first is a modified free-market approach to recruiting college players. Instead of sweet-talking recruits, college coaches will instead offer athletes real contracts, just as professional teams do. One school might think a star halfback is worth $40,000 a year; another might think he's worth $60,000. When the player chooses a school, money will inevitably be part of the equation. For both coaches and players, sweet-talking will take a back seat to clear-eyed financial calculations.

The second element is a salary cap for every team, along with a minimum annual salary for every scholarship athlete. The salary caps I have in mind are pretty low, all things considered: $3 million for the salaries for the football team, and $650,000 for basketball, with a minimum salary of $25,000 per athlete. I would keep the number of basketball scholarships the same, at 13, while reducing the number of football scholarships from 85 to a more reasonable 60, close to the size of N.F.L. rosters. Thus, each football team would spend $1.5 million on the minimum salaries, and have the rest to attract star players. Basketball teams would use $325,000 on minimum salaries, and have another $325,000 to allocate as they wish among players. Every player who stays in school for four years would also get an additional two-year scholarship, which he could use either to complete his bachelor's or get a master's degree. That's the third element.

The fourth: Each player would have lifetime health insurance. And the fifth: An organization would be created to represent both current and former college athletes. It may well turn out to be that this body takes on the form of a players' union, since a salary cap is illegal under antitrust law unless it is part of a collective-bargaining agreement. (That's why most professional sports leagues embrace players' unions.) This organization - let's call it the College Players Association - would manage the health insurance, negotiate with the N.C.A.A. to set the salary caps and salary minimums, distribute royalties and serve as an all-around counterweight to the N.C.A.A.

There have been other pay-the-player schemes put forward recently, in particular a Sports Illustrated proposal that would pay every athlete on campus a small stipend, including lacrosse players, golfers and volleyball players. But I think it's better to acknowledge forthrightly that those who play football and men's basketball are different from other college athletes - and that the players in those two revenue sports should be treated accordingly. Baseball and hockey players have a choice that football and basketball players don't have: they can go pro as soon as they leave high school, thanks to the existence of minor leagues. And sports like wrestling and rowing don't offer the possibility of a pro career - wrestlers and rowers are true amateurs. As James Duderstadt, the former president of the University of Michigan, told me: "Most sports can be justified as part of what a university does. But big-time football and men's basketball are clearly commercial entertainment and have been pulled away from the fundamental purpose of a university." The denial of that central fact is the primary reason those sports are so troubled today. Paying the players will cause the vast majority of the scandals to go away. In economic terms, the players' incentives will be realigned.

To see how, let's take a closer look at the elements of the plan.
Bidding for Players
Yes, I know: I had a hard time coming to grips with this, too. Then I met two Bay Area economists, Andy Schwarz and Dan Rascher, who work as litigation consultants and have a longstanding interest in the economics of college sports. (Rascher is also a professor of sport management at the University of San Francisco.) The case they make for using the free market to recruit players makes an overwhelming amount of sense.

One of the N.C.A.A.'s primary arguments against paying players is that the concept of amateurism is what defines college sports and make it special - and that to abandon that amateurism would ruin the college "brand." But Schwarz and Rascher argue amateurism has nothing to do with why fans love college sports. "What draws us to college athletics is that we love seeing students representing our schools," Schwarz says. "That would be just as true if they were being paid. The N.C.A.A. likes to conflate paying college athletes with the issue of whether they would still be students. Students get paid all the time."

What about the argument that football and basketball profits subsidize the other athletic programs? "If having a good lacrosse team is part of what the community values, then the university should pay for it," Schwarz says. "They shouldn't ask the football team to subsidize it." As for the objection that colleges with major sports programs don't have the money to pay $2,000 stipends, much less free-market salaries, Schwarz and Rascher just roll their eyes. "It's already an arms race," Schwarz says. Rascher points not just to the millions the coaches make but also to the money schools spend on facilities to impress recruits. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply pay some of that money to the recruits instead? "Economically, a big chunk of that money really does belong to the players," Schwarz says. The fact that they are not getting anything is precisely why everyone else is getting so much.

If it is still hard to imagine schools dangling financial contracts in front of high-school kids, consider that nonathletes get stipends all the time from universities. Besides, how much worse could it be than the status quo, in which parents and hangers-on too often angle for a little something to steer their children to this school or that one? In the world Schwarz and Rascher envision, athletes would hire advisers to help them. Legitimizing relations between agents and college athletes would be another huge improvement, because players could get good advice about their professional prospects. Currently, any player who so much as talks to an agent loses his eligibility to continue playing college sports.

Would coaches sometimes overpay players who turn out to be duds? Of course. But they would learn, just as the pros have had to learn, how to bring a financial perspective to evaluating talent. Actual coaching - x's and o's - would become more important. The number of recruiting violations would quite likely shrink to a negligible figure, as would most of the scandals that involve players taking money. They wouldn't need to take money because they would be paid for their work.
The Salary Cap and the Minimum Salary
Not everybody can be a highly paid star, of course. Teams need right tackles and backup point guards too. The minimum salary is not meant to make anybody rich. It is meant to ensure that no matter what your status on the team, you can still live like other students on campus - maybe even a tad better - even if you come from a disadvantaged background. For all the stereotypes of college jocks living large, the reality is often quite harsh. Indeed, to inquire about the life of college athletes is to hear, invariably, about players who wear the same clothes every day because they don't own any others. N.C.A.A. rules make no allowance for poverty, yet surely college athletes should be able to go on a date, rent an off-campus apartment, lease a car, have some clothes, visit home and pay for their parents to see them play once in a while. That is what the minimum salary will provide.

Image

As for the salary cap, it is an acknowledgment of two things. First, without a cap of some sort, the wealthiest athletic departments, like Texas's, with its own sports network, and Oklahoma State's, which has Boone Pickens's fortune behind it, could well dominate the recruiting of top players. A salary caps equalizes the amount every team can pay to recruit players. Those who succeed will be those who use that money most intelligently. (Competitive balance is another reason the N.C.A.A. gives for not paying players.)

Second, the salary cap recognizes that university athletic departments don't have unlimited sums of money to throw at football and basketball players. Andrew Zimbalist, the noted sports economist at Smith College - and a critic of many N.C.A.A. practices - told me he agrees with the contention that schools can't afford to pay players. In his recent book of essays about college sports, " Circling the Bases," he also called for federal legislation to cap - and lower - coaches' egregious salaries. But if the players were paid, the market would probably readjust coaches' salaries all by itself. At the University of Texas, Mack Brown, the football coach, can earn up to $6 million with bonuses. Texas could pay its entire salary cap merely by hiring a $3 million coach instead of a $6 million one. The point is, if schools had to pay their workers, they would find the money. It would simply mean trimming excess elsewhere.

There is another possible benefit. Schools could turn to boosters to help raise money to pay the players. What an improvement that would be - using booster money to legitimately pay players instead of handing them cash under the table.

One obvious rejoinder is that paying players will create haves and have-nots in college sports. That is true - the Alabamas and Florida States would have a much easier time coming up with $3.65 million for their football and basketball players than Youngstown State. But the big-name college programs already have overwhelming advantages over the smaller Division I schools; paying the players doesn't really change that fact. What it will most likely do is force smaller schools to rethink their commitment to big-time athletics. Schools that truly couldn't afford to pay their players would be forced to de-emphasize football and men's basketball - and, perhaps, regain their identity as institutions of higher learning. Ultimately, I suspect that if schools had to start paying their players, we would wind up with maybe 72 football schools (six conferences of 12 teams each) - down from the current 120 Football Bowl Subdivision programs - and 100 or so major basketball schools instead of the 338 that now play in Division I. Seems about right, doesn't it?
The Six-Year Scholarship
If you were starting from scratch, you would never devise a system that relies on universities to serve as a feeder system for pro sports. It is not what universities were intended to do, and no other country in the world does it that way. In Europe, where soccer is king, children with professional potential are culled from the educational system in their early teens and often receive separate schooling from their soccer teams. Those who don't wind up playing professionally are then ruthlessly tossed aside.

College athletes are routinely tossed aside, too - after they have used up their athletic eligibility. Even those who officially "graduate" often do so without getting a real education. It is the unspoken scandal that permeates college sports, and it is corrosive not just for the athletes but also for the entire student body. "Within two or three weeks of coming to a university, players often find out they are woefully underprepared for college work," Duderstadt says. "Very quickly they give up and major in eligibility. They take the cupcake courses. It is an insidious thing."

There is another issue: Players who were stars in high school inevitably come to college with big dreams of going pro one day. Yet, as Emmert notes, "we had 5,500 Division I men's basketball players last year, and only 50 went to the N.B.A." By the time most players realize that they are not going to make it to the professional ranks, so much time has been lost that they can never catch up academically. In most cases, they also can't afford to quit football and concentrate on their studies, because that would cost them their athletic scholarships.

The primary purpose of a six-year scholarship is to give athletes whose playing days have ended a chance to get their degrees - and to really have time to focus on classes that can prepare them for a future without football or basketball. It would allow players to take fewer courses during their years of athletic eligibility, giving them a better chance to succeed at the courses they do take. And it would make it possible for those players who do graduate within four years to pursue a graduate degree. The N.C.A.A. would no longer need to obsess over an athlete's academic performance; as long as he met the same standard the school applied to every other student, he could stay in school and play on the team. The extra two years would place the onus on the athlete to get an education, while also giving him the opportunity. Isn't that how it should work anyway?
Lifetime Health Insurance and the College Players Association
It is not just professional football players who have concussions. Nor are they the only ones who take painkillers to disguise their injuries - or who suffer chronic pain by the time they are in their 30s thanks to the beatings their bodies took during their athletic careers. Taylor Branch, the author of the Atlantic essay, was a good football player in high school, but he turned down a football scholarship to Georgia Tech because he knew his body was already breaking down just from playing high-school football. "I wouldn't have had any shoulders left if I had played football in college," he told me recently. Providing lifetime health insurance as a benefit for anyone who plays at least two years of college ball is a no-brainer.

The College Players Association, which would administer the health-insurance plan, would also represent the players whenever salary caps or minimum salaries are being set, as well as on those occasions when the N.C.A.A. or a college conference is cutting a deal with a television network or a marketing firm. Players would receive a percentage of the revenues - I am thinking 10 percent at first, though that, too, would quite likely rise - to be disbursed after they leave school, giving them a small share of the revenue their team generated while they were there. The organization would handle licensing deals on behalf of players whose jerseys are being sold, too, and collect fees whenever the N.C.A.A. markets the images of former players. (A portion of those fees would be used to pay the health insurance costs.) This clearinghouse role would resemble the system by which songwriters receive royalties from B.M.I. or Ascap whenever their songs are played on the radio or on television.

I borrowed the idea of a college players' association from Michael D. Hausfeld, a plaintiffs' lawyer who likes to take on high-profile cases with an element of social justice to them. Since the summer of 2009, he has been representing former Division I college football and basketball players in a class-action antitrust lawsuit against the N.C.A.A. for licensing their images without compensating them. It's called the O'Bannon case, after the lead plaintiff, Ed O'Bannon, a former college basketball star who led U.C.L.A. to a national championship in 1995. A trial is scheduled for May 2013.

(Full disclosure: William Isaacson, a lawyer with Boies, Schiller & Flexner, is among more than a dozen attorneys from various firms who have assisted Hausfeld in bringing the O'Bannon lawsuit. My fiancée is the firm's director of communications. She has played no role in the case, and does not stand to profit if O'Bannon wins.)

The case has received attention because it's a legitimate threat - maybe the first one ever - to the N.C.A.A.'s longstanding refusal to compensate its players. This is partly because the plaintiffs are former players - including basketball greats like Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell - who do not appear to be in it for a quick buck but seem to genuinely view themselves as trailblazers. For his part, Hausfeld has embraced this litigation as a cause akin to a lawsuit he once filed against Texaco for discriminating against minority employees. That case, he says proudly, "resulted not just in a monetary judgment, but a restructuring of the company's relationship with minorities."

Hausfeld insists that athletes have rights: "They have rights to a fair allocation of revenue, to health care, to career development, to education and to posteducational opportunities." He says that he believes that the O'Bannon case could well lead to a "restructuring" of the relationship between college athletes and the N.C.A.A. Which, in turn, might lead to paying the players.

It is possible, certainly, that the N.C.A.A. could win the O'Bannon case. It is also possible that the case could be decided or settled narrowly - allowing former players to be compensated for the use of their images but leaving the status of current players unchanged. But both Hausfeld and the N.C.A.A. have been acting as if the stakes are higher than that. Hausfeld has been attacking the concept of amateurism head-on, and the N.C.A.A. has been defending it with equal fervor. So there is at least a possibility that a judge will conclude that the N.C.A.A.'s refusal to pay its players has less to do with protecting the sanctity of amateur athletics than with its needs as a cartel to illegally suppress wages.

Anticipating the day when a judge might ask him what sort of remedy he would propose for the plaintiffs, Hausfeld has put forward the idea of an organization that would negotiate licensing agreements on behalf of former players and then act to collect and distribute the money they are due. I would take that notion a step further, and have that organization represent current players as well and negotiate a wider range of issues on their behalf. If Hausfeld wins the case, that may be where we are headed anyway.

To those who question why I am willing to pay these two categories of male athletes, but not any female athletes, my simple answer is that football and men's basketball players occupy a different role on campus - the role of an employee as well as a student - that female (and most other male) athletes do not. If the time comes when women's basketball is as commercialized and profit-driven as men's basketball, then yes, the women should be paid as well. But we're a long way from that point.

There are almost surely Title IX issues surrounding my plan, which would probably have to be settled by the courts. (Title IX is the law that guarantees women equal athletic opportunities in college sports.) But I would argue that the employee status of those who play football and men's basketball means that paying them does not violate Title IX. It is worth noting that, even now, 40 years after Title IX became the law of the land, many schools still spend far more money on men's than women's sports without running afoul of it.

To hear the gnashing of teeth by those who believe that money will soil college sports is to hark back to the days when baseball was on the cusp of free agency, or the Olympics was considering abandoning its longstanding adherence to amateurism. In both cases, critics feared that the introduction of serious and legitimate money would damage the sports, turn off the fans and lead to chaos. Instead, baseball and the Olympics got much better.

College sports will become more honest once players are paid, and more honorable. Fans will be able to enjoy football and men's basketball without having to avert their eyes from the scandals and the hypocrisy. Yes, it's true: paying players will change college sports. They will be better, too.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mark Emmert, the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the almighty overseer of American college sports, likes to think of himself as a reformer.

# data[].attributes.body
c march 20 2014
r it doe agree with my statement
a it is from youtube
ai did not hears anyting bad
p it did noy really do much

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Richard Sherman Student Athlete Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Paying College Athletes Persuasive Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Crossfire: Should college athletes be paid?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Christine Brennan debate whether college athletes should be paid.

# data[].attributes.body
c
r it dose agre with me
a it is from youtube
a it was very good no mistakes
p it is super perswasive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Richard Sherman Student Athlete Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should college athletes be paid to play?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CNN's Sara Ganim reports on the latest lawsuit challenging the NCAA, asking that college athletes be paid.

# data[].attributes.body
c
r it agrees with my clam
a it is from ny times
a i did not see any grameer or spelling
p very perswasive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Athletes Be Paid? (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A star athlete’s freak injury revives the debate.

# data[].attributes.body
c
r is dose not agree with my clame
a it is from greanvile
a no spellig errors
p it is kinda perswasive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine working for countless hours, six days a week, then putting on multiple performances just so someone else can be paid billions. That is the life of a college athlete. College athletes do not get any recognition or benefits that they deserve for the revenue they bring to their university and the surrounding community. For some college athletes, things such as tuition, gear, recovery items, and other necessities needed to perform are not free or cheap. Many college athletes pay money out of their own pockets to be able to perform at the level they need to, but who gets all the financial benefits? The NCAA and the university itself.

According to USA Today, the NCAA had a revenue of $1.1 Billion from 2017 NCAA college sporting events. How much of this money went to the college athletes who are the ones physically and mentally performing generating this money? Zero. However, in a legal way, college athletes who are playing at Division 1 or Division 2 schools are being paid with full scholarship tuition. It is fair to say that, paid tuition is equivalent to being a paid athlete. This leaves out Division 3 college athletes who put in just as much hard work and time to be able to perform at a high level and generate money for the NCAA and their university, but do not receive full rides. At Division 3 colleges, the only scholarship that is allowed is academic, not athletic. I interviewed Walker McDonald, a current college athlete at Greenville University, and asked him the question of, should college athletes get paid for playing for their university? Walker said, "I believe college athletes should be paid based on how much money they get from scholarships...athletes should at least make enough money to cover their tuition if the scholarship doesn't."

Media by NCAA Money Revenue.

Media by All NCAA College Sports.

College athletes have to sign contracts by the NCAA stating that they will not receive any money from anyone while they are playing for the university. I do not dismiss the fact that playing for a university is a privilege and not a right, college athletes have many experiences and memories that are priceless in life. However, times are hard for many students, and college athletes have a bit more expenses when it comes to necessities, they need to be able to perform at high levels. I was able to interview Josias Parker, an alumna of the men's basketball team at Greenville University. I asked him if college athletes should get paid for their time playing for their university. Josias replied by saying, "I definitely think college athletes should get paid, because universities make a lot of money from sports, sports bringing a majority of income, especially for small schools like Greenville University. Athletes should get paid especially because college is a tough time with money, so paying money to athletes will give college athletes more relief and will try to help them and aid them with whatever they need, like necessities they need to perform well."

There is a good compromise with those who disagree with the idea of college athletes getting paid, instead of a set salary like professionals. The very least college athletes could receive is donations from fans or other organizations. College athletes are told to treat their sport as a job and be professional about every aspect of the game. However, like waiters and waitresses get tips for doing a good job, why can't athletes be rewarded the same way?

Even without pay, the very least college athletes could receive is a guarantee that their scholarship will not be taken away if they are hurt playing. If we are going the route that an athlete's pay is their scholarship, then it shouldn't be able to be taken away when they are no longer "useful" for the university. Athletes like Kyle Hardrick who lost his basketball scholarship at Oklahoma University after he tore his meniscus in his knee are examples that universities only care about the ability of the player to perform. If universities only care about the usefulness of the athlete, then there should be guaranteed tuition or pay allowing the athlete to finish college even after being injured and unable to play. Student college athletes should get paid, especially after seeing the details of what they go through to perform at the high caliber level they compete at.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine working for countless hours, six days a week, then putting on multiple performances just so someone else can be paid billions. That is the life of a college athlete. College athletes do not get any recognition or benefits that they deserve for the revenue they bring to their university and the surrounding community.

# data[].attributes.body
c
r
a
a
p

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Athletes Be Paid? - SmartAsset

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elite professional athletes regularly draw salaries reaching into the millions. The minimum annual salary for players in the four major sports leagues is well into the six-figure range, and it’s not uncommon for star players to receive multi-year contracts worth more than $100 million. If you’re a c…

# data[].attributes.body
c
r
a
a
p

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College athletes should be making money in some way related to the sports that they play. It doesn't make much sense for them to not see monetary gain from what they are potentially going to be doing for a living. Sports is one of the most popular industries in the entire world, and it is still growing. Because of this, it only makes sense that college athletes should have some of the same financial opportunities as their professional counterparts.

One argument that has been made to justify college athletes not being paid is that they are not professionals and, therefore, should not receive income. This argument does have some logic behind it, but it simply does not hold up when one takes into account the fact that head coaches are making millions of dollars per season.

The increasing amount of money being made in college sports each year is making it more difficult to argue against paying players, according to a Time article by sports writer Sean Gregory. Nick Saban, who is the head coach of the Alabama Crimson Tide Football team, made $11 million this past season, and defensive coordinator Jeremy Pruitt and offensive coordinator Brian Daboll were both paid over $1 million. How is it okay for players to not get paid at all when coaches are being paid so much money?

Yes, some of these players are getting scholarships and some special privileges, like priority when it comes to registering for courses, but that's just not enough when they are playing sports, especially ones with physical contact. It's no secret that highly physical sports and injuries go hand-in-hand, and a player could have a career-ending injury at any moment while playing. The unsafety of the sports alone should be reason enough for players to earn some kind of revenue from going out and competing for their schools.

If the National Collegiate Athletic Association will not to allow college athletes to be paid for playing the sports, then they should at least let them make money by marketing themselves. Players don't make any money from the selling of merchandise, such as their jerseys. They aren't allowed to market themselves and earn money as a result. Why is that?

According to a 2011 NCAA Survey, many students average 30 hours of practice a week, while some spend over 40. When you combine that amount of time with the time spent in classes and the time spent doing homework, it's practically impossible for them to find time to work a part time job to earn some spending money.

This restriction on college athletes is doing more harm than good. I see no real point in hindering the athletes in this kind of way when other college students can do work within their majors and not be penalized. Music majors with scholarships are completely free to be part of and play in school performances while also going out and performing at clubs to make money. The same goes for students studying acting in college and performing in school films while also being allowed to act in films outside the school. I've never heard anything about students in these majors being prohibited from promoting themselves, so why are college athletes restricted from doing so?

Allowing athletes to sign endorsement deals with brands like Nike and Adidas would be a huge step forward, and it would benefit both the players and the companies. In the past, major shoe corporations were essentially bribing college athletes and their family members as a way to get them to attend certain colleges. Making it legal for athletes to have endorsement deals with companies would eliminate this problem. As an additional benefit, college athletes would also be more likely to stay in school until they graduate, because they would be earning money and wouldn't have to worry about dropping out to financially support their families.

What harm could come from giving college athletes a respectable level of freedom and opportunity when it comes to making money from playing sports? Perhaps at one point in time the practice of not letting them do so made sense, but we are now living in an age when there are so many options for marketing oneself, and college athletes have access to none of them. As a fan of college sports and a friend of several college athletes, I feel obligated to support them in any way I can when it comes to changing these policies so that they can start to make income.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College athletes deserve to be paid for their play - The Triangle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College athletes should be making money in some way related to the sports that they play. It doesn't make much sense for them to not see monetary gain from what they are potentially going to be doing for a living. Sports is one of the most popular industries in the entire world, and it is still growing.

# data[].attributes.body
c
r
a
a
p

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College sports generate billions of dollars in revenues in the United States every year. In 2016, CBS and Turner Broadcasting extended their contact with the NCAA Division 1 basketball tournament with an 8-year, $8.8 billion extension. That placed the value of March Madness at more than $1 billion per year for the first time in history.

The extension in 2016 followed a 2010 contract which offered a 14-year agreement to broadcast the annual tournament for $10.8 billion.

The NCAA states that 90% of the revenues generated through the games played by student athletes go into services, programs, or direct distribution opportunities which directly benefit member conferences and schools. Aside from equipment access, medical care, scholarships, and travel support, student athletes receive zero compensation for their participation in their chosen support.By definition, paying the athlete would make them a professional. On the other hand, it could be argued that scholarships are an alternative form of payment already being provided. Because of the revenues their activities generate, the pros and cons of paying college athletes are closely scrutinized.

List of the Pros of Paying College Athletes

1. It encourages healthier student athletes.
Paying college athletes for their participation in sports eliminates the need for them to find outside employment to support themselves. Many scholarships may offer tuition, room, and board coverage in return for participating in a sport, but not every student athlete qualifies for a scholarship. Walk-on players have their images used to generate revenues for the NCAA too for zero compensation. Paying all athletes would allow them to focus on academics and athletics without worrying about making ends meet.

2. It provides relief for families.
Families are often tasked with providing direct support for their student athletes to abide by current payment rules. Student athletes are not even permitted to autograph items, or sell certain personal memorabilia, as a way to generate revenues. Outside of student loans for partial scholarship or walk-on athletes, it is up to each family to pay for the student to be at the school. Paying the athlete would provide some financial relief to these families, which may not have the funds to make long-term supports.

3. It provides another incentive to play.
Most student athletes who play in college never become professional athletes. In the NCAA, fewer than 2% of college athletes go on to become professional athletes. Most become professionals in their chosen field of study. By offering a stipend for playing, much like a work-study program, students would gain another incentive to become involved in athletics. They could use these funds to pay for costs not covered by a scholarship. Students could save the money for a first apartment outside of college. If a student knows they will not go pro, they may decide to give up sports instead, which would ultimately reduce the income generated by collegiate sporting activities.

4. It would stop corruption.
Despite rules preventing such actions, coaches, shoe executives, agents, apparel representatives, and other industry professionals often conspire to pay recruits to join a specific college. It is a practice that stays out of the public eye because everyone involved benefits if no one knows about the payments. Using money to influence a high school student to select a specific program and hire a specific business manager is felony-level conduct. Allowing college athletes to be paid would help to limit this issue, which would reduce investigation costs across the board.

5. It would attract better athletes who stay in programs longer.
The goal of attending a college program should be to earn a degree. Academics should be the top priority. For the athletes that do have the ability to play professionally, going to college is a stop on the journey toward a good paycheck. If these athletes could be paid while they are attending a college program, then they would be more likely to stick with the program to eventually earn their degree. They could then be drafted into a professional league once they've completed their courses.

6. It could lower tuition rates.
Paying student athletes does not mean that the costs for everyone would automatically go up. For some institutions, the costs could actually go down. Increased competition for the best athletes would create improved programming at colleges across the country. Athletic facilities would be upgraded to encourage enrollment. Although the richest institutions would always be able to offer more, at the end of the day, most people would benefit from lower costs because the system would require more efficiencies to remain productive.

7. It could create college credits that could be used toward graduation.
One of the benefits of work-study programs is that it can supplement the credits earned while supplementing college tuition costs. Athletes could use some of the concepts and skills they learn within their program to enhance their educational experience. Depending on the setup of the program, it could even help athletes graduate with a degree in their chosen faster.

List of the Cons of Paying College Athletes

1. It would eliminate the line between amateur and professional sports.
The reason why student athletes are not currently paid, according to the NCAA, is that it would eliminate the separation between amateurism and professionalism in sports. If that line is eliminated, then the links between an education at a college and sports played at a college would weaken. That would cause the athletes who don't eventually turn pro to suffer because they'd have fewer opportunities available to them.

2. It would prioritize athleticism over academics.
Although students would still be required to meet academic standards to qualify for academic programs, paying athletes for sports participation would likely shift personal priorities. They would be required to maintain their position on the team to benefit from the income, much like they are required to do so now to maintain a scholarship. Athletes would choose programs where they would be paid the most, instead of choosing programs where they could learn the most.

3. It would become a burden on taxpayers.
The idea of paying college athletes a salary comes out of the revenues which are generated by sporting activities. In reality, much of that money is already used by the conferences and schools to host games or conduct events already. To pay athletes a salary, most public institutions would need to ask taxpayers for monetary support. Private institutions would likely increase tuition rates to meet the financial obligations involved. Those burdens could stop some students from enrolling for academic purposes, which would create lower-skill workers over time throughout the country.

4. It would burden smaller schools.
Would all student athletes receive the same amount of pay, no matter which school they chose to attend? If so, then there would be an undue burden placed on smaller schools that compete at higher levels. If pay levels are allowed to be tiered, based on where a college competes, then is it fair for one athlete to be paid more than another because they were accepted into a "superior" program? There are plenty of structural questions that would need to be resolved before paying college athletes became the norm.

5. It could encourage schools to cut other programs.
Many schools use the funds from their athletics programs to fund other programs and activities. If those funds are ordered to be used as a salary for college athletes, then the other programs and services might suffer because of it. That would degrade the quality of life available on-campus at many institutions. Depending on what programs were cut, it could even impact the safety of students over a long time period.

6. It could create issues of paycheck equality.
If athletics is treated like a work-study program, there could be issues of equality in pay that would need to be evaluated. Some students in other programs would likely not earn the same amount as an athlete for their work-study program. When everything comes down to dollars and cents, there could be more discrimination put into college campuses by paying college athletes than the benefits such an activity would provide.

7. It would create opportunities to unionize.
Student athletes who are receiving a salary would be classified as employees. That would give student athletes the right to unionize in many states. That would create conflicts between schools and athletes in a manner that is similar to the conflicts seen between owners and professional athletes. Some participants would still be minors, which means their parents would need to be involved in contract negotiations. New levels of administrative complication would be incorporated into the educational system, which would further increase costs.

Paying student athletes creates a number of variables which offer plenty of pros and cons to think about. Most people would agree that athletes should be compensated when profits are generated by their likeness and activities. Most would also agree that university programs should emphasize academics over athletics. Finding a balance, using key points like these, is the only way progress on this issue will be obtained.

Blog Post Author Credentials
Louise Gaille is the author of this post. She received her B.A. in Economics from the University of Washington. In addition to being a seasoned writer, Louise has almost a decade of experience in Banking and Finance. If you have any suggestions on how to make this post better, then go here to contact our team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
14 Should College Athletes Be Paid Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College sports generate billions of dollars in revenues in the United States every year. In 2016, CBS and Turner Broadcasting extended their contact with the NCAA Division 1 basketball tournament with an 8-year, $8.8 billion extension. That placed the value of March Madness at more than $1 billion per year for the first time in history.