# data[].attributes.body
C June 23rd, 2020
R Yes it does becuase this article show me why its a great idea to pay college athletes because it will give their familes stress lifted of their shouldrs about having to give their child money for college and food for them.
A Wilfed, O
A  The information in this article is informational and factual becuase they have professinal and buissness links in the article to the people they got the information from and the information in thsi article looks like it is informational basing it off all the other articles iv seen doing this project.
P The purpous of thsi article is to inform people on why college athletes should be paid and why its a good idea for them to be paid esspecially with alot of colleges having left over money from the projects they did they can pay college palyers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some students do well in sports than their studies. Do they deserve to be paid? Learn why college athletes should be paid in the article.

# data[].attributes.body
C September 29th, 2021
R Yes it does it shows me why its a good idea to pay college athletes for playing the sport they play in the college they play for.
A Dan Wolken
A The information in this article is informational becuase the aouthro has writen a numerus amounts of articles basing it off why college athletes should be paid.
P The purpouse of this article is to inform people on why college athletes should be payed like any other professianal sport player becuase college level is pretty much at the pro level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Here's how college sports change forever.

At some point over the next several months, a labor union will engage with a group of football players at a prominent private school like Notre Dame, Southern Cal, Stanford or Boston College and encourage them to rally support for unionization within the team. Enough players will sign union cards to take them to the nearest National Labor Relations Board regional office.

There will probably be pushback from the school to the idea of unionization, so a hearing will take place. The NLRB's regional director will rule in favor of the athletes' right to form a union, designating them as employees.

After the various appeals and challenges, and a secret ballot vote with enough players voting for unionization, the NLRB board in Washington, D.C., will ultimately recognize that college athletes have collective bargaining rights. When that happens, the same process will take place at other private schools, which will be forced to negotiate with players on issues like health care benefits and revenue sharing.

And then, when it becomes clear the unionized programs have a recruiting advantage over public schools, state legislatures even in conservative, anti-union states will begin to figure out how to change their laws so that their athletes can be part of the movement. Eventually, the last wall of amateurism that the NCAA has tried for decades to uphold - direct payments to college athletes - will come tumbling down.

"In general, I'd say we're in the red zone finally," said former University of Minnesota regent Michael Hsu, who sits on the volunteer advisory board of the College Football Players Association, a group that advocates for unionization as a pathway to greater rights for college athletes. "This is kind of the spark we needed to let the players know they really do have rights and they should be thinking bout them."

The spark came Wednesday in the form of a memo from Jennifer Abruzzo, newly appointed by President Biden to be the NLRB's lead attorney. In the memo, Abruzzo states that college athletes are employees, not "student-athletes," and makes clear that she will support any effort by athletes to "act collectively to improve their terms and conditions of employment" if brought to the NLRB.

Though the memo itself doesn't immediately change college sports - it doesn't even guarantee that the NLRB would rule favorably on a unionization effort - the climate has changed significantly since 2015 when the NLRB handed the NCAA a victory by rejecting efforts to unionize the Northwestern football team.

Even then, the NLRB's decision didn't really strike down the merits of unionizing or say that college athletes aren't employees. Instead, the NLRB showed deference to NCAA rules, reasonably concluding that a unionized football team playing non-unionized football teams would be pretty disruptive for college sports.

While the NCAA applauded the decision, it was a Pyrrhic victory. In reality, all the NLRB did was punt until the politics of the moment were different. And boy have they ever changed in the last six years.

"Today is just one step in a long National Labor Relations Board process, but it's indicative of the body politic shifting," said Tom McMillen, the president and chief executive of the Lead1 Association that represents the 130 FBS athletics directors. "There are a lot of ramifications to this that have to be sorted out, but it fundamentally alters the landscape of college sports if it goes to an employee model. Hopefully there's a step short of that that can be compromised."

But for advocates of college athletes rights, where's the incentive to compromise? Right now, the NCAA hasn't just been stripped of power and moral authority over college sports, it has more or less abdicated any regulatory responsibility over to the schools.

For all the hue and cry we heard from NCAA president Mark Emmert and conference commissioners about needing a national law to govern name, image and likeness rights, we're seeing now that it isn't particularly necessary.

For the last few months, college athletes from coast to coast have been making deals and earning money without significant regulations aside from those imposed by their own campuses. The doomsday predictions of uncontrollable chaos haven't come to fruition. And based on the strong television ratings from early in the football season, fans aren't turned off in the least because the quarterback of their team is driving a nice car or selling chicken fingers on Twitter.

Amateurism isn't just over, it should be obvious by now that it was never part of what made college sports popular.

And just like NIL, which started with a push by the California legislature and spread like wildfire in states that didn't want to get left behind, unions will become a lot more palatable when schools that have them are able to offer better deals to recruits.

Obviously, there are a lot of steps from here to there - and a ton of unanswered questions along the way. Would there be a national college athletes' union, or would each program have one that negotiated individually with the school? Would different sports have different unions, or would they be under the same umbrella? How would Title IX factor in when you're negotiating with athletes in revenue-generating sports vs. non-revenue sports?

Nobody can predict exactly how it will shake out, but the Abruzzo memo Wednesday can only be read as an invitation for unions and advocacy groups to start the process of organizing college football and basketball teams.

"It's basically a land grab at this point, starting today," Hsu said. "It'll be a big fight, who's going to be the union to represent the first school because it's a potential expansion of market for them."

The NCAA should have realized long ago that a lot of its problems could be solved through collective bargaining. Instead of bringing athletes to the table and working out how to share the wealth just like the NBA and NFL do with their player unions, the NCAA spent tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and wasted a decade on trying to prevent them from seeing a cent of the revenue they help generate.

With various lawsuits and legislative proposals in the works, there could be a pathway toward some type of collective bargaining arrangement before any case ever reaches the NLRB. "Theoretically, they could even get revenue sharing in some way and be codified as not employees, and that would kind of end all this," McMillen said. "The student rights activists and lawyers pushing employment won't be satisfied with that, but it could be a much more modern model and preserve college sports as we know it."

But is there any leadership left in the NCAA to steer it toward pragmatic decisions without first getting stomped on by some arm of the government? Up until now, the NCAA has allowed itself to be at the mercy of political inertia, which is no longer interested in propping up amateurism.

What the NLRB set in motion Wednesday should make that clear to everyone in college sports. Whether they get that message - or can do anything about it - remains to be seen.
Follow USA TODAY Sports columnist Dan Wolken on Twitter @DanWolken

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College athletes will get paid. It's just a matter of time after NLRB memo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here's how college sports change forever. At some point over the next several months, a labor union will engage with a group of football players at a prominent private school like Notre Dame, Southern Cal, Stanford or Boston College and encourage them to rally support for unionization within the team.

# data[].attributes.body
C July 28th, 2021
R Yes it does answer my question on why college athletes should be paid for playing a sport for their college and relife stress from their family for not worrying about the finaclial standpoint there child is in.
A Scott Nover
A The information for this article is informational becsause the author is verified for this type of writing and has done multiple articles on the same topic as well
P The purpous of this article is to pursuade pepole into wanting colleges to start paying there athletes for playing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When America's college athletes could begin profiting off their personal brand for the first time this summer, Lauren Burke was ready.

The 22-year-old rising senior on the University of Texas softball team had made a name for herself on the field and off. During the pandemic year's shortened 2020 softball season, Burke racked up a monstrous .453 batting average, ranking second in the Big 12 conference.

But it's likely that most of her fans know her from TikTok. Burke, who mainly posts about softball and fitness, has 400,000 followers on TikTok and nearly 100,000 on Instagram. Burke's first-ever video - of her and a teammate at batting practice - garnered 1.2 million views. Those are follower counts to which many full-time content creators aspire.

But until recently, college athletes could not monetize their social media presences like typical influencers. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has historically limited its athletes' ability to make any money at all - even side businesses unrelated to their athletic pursuits. After a series of court rulings against it, including a unanimous one by the Supreme Court, the NCAA changed its rules on July 1, allowing collegiate athletes to monetize their fame, known in the business as names, images, and likenesses (NIL), for the first time.

"Student-athletes are going to be some of the best influencers and content creators out there because of the assistance we have within the university, [and] the fans and supporters that we have too," Burke said. "They're gonna be really good at what they do."

College athletes have long been social media influencers, and now they can get paid like them too. Expect some to get paid better than the pros.

A long time coming

The NCAA, the organization in charge of college sports in the US, was under mounting pressure ahead of the NIL rule change. The decision marks a major concession in a drawn-out debate about the amateur nature of US college sports, a multibillion-dollar industry that has, until now, denied athletes the opportunity to make money beyond their scholarships-whether they are obscure benchwarmers or household names.

In the last decade, the dissonance between college athletes and the universities that profit off of their success had become increasingly apparent. College coaches are the highest-paid public employees in most states, earning $9.3 million in the case of Clemson football coach Dabo Swinney, by far the highest-paid in South Carolina. Yet numerous reports have found that some college athletes - even some star players - have even gone hungry or homeless while playing. Since then, unionization efforts at a few schools - starting with Northwestern University's football team - have attempted to gain rights for student-athletes but have come up short because the National Labor Relations Board deemed college sports outside of its purview.

NIL revenue "always represented a third way for the NCAA," said Galen Clavio, an associate professor and director of the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana University. "The [NCAA] could start to allow athletes some degree of compensation without having to go through the likely legal hassle of directly paying athletes."

The recent decision came in the waning days of June-before 14 state laws went into effect on or around July 1 that allowed athletes to profit off their NIL whether the NCAA liked it or not. A dozen more are already signed into law and will take effect in the coming years. And many other states, as well as Congress, have introduced NIL legislation for college athletes. Many supported the state bills solely so their public universities wouldn't lose a competitive advantage in recruiting.

On June 21, 2021, the US Supreme Court also affirmed a district court decision that the NCAA violated antitrust rules by limiting education-related benefits schools can provide to students, a unanimous decision that could lead to further rulings on the side of college athletes. Ultimately, the NCAA rules change was a belated attempt to level the playing field once the decision was largely out of the organization's hands.

The NCAA still does not allow colleges and universities to pay athletes like professional sports leagues pay their players-with salaries and benefits-but the new changes will allow college athletes to solicit endorsement deals, sell their own merchandise, and make money off of their social media accounts.

Student-athletes are getting paid

In early hours and days after the rules changed, a flurry of college athletes posted about brand deals and other business ventures. They range widely in style, pay, and renown: Fresno State women's basketball players Hanna and Haley Cavinder signed with Boost Mobile, Alabama defensive end Ga'Quincy "Kool-Aid" McKinstry is selling a non-fungible token (NFT) through SkyBox Sports, and Iowa men's basketball player Jordan Bohannon is signing autographs through a partnership with a local fireworks store.

"​​Student-athletes understand these platforms much better than a lot of the professionals now getting paid to manage them," said Kenon Brown, an associate professor at the University of Alabama, "and I think it's coming into the spotlight with these endorsements that you're seeing."

Though most athletes are likely looking at much smaller deals with local businesses, top athlete influencers like the Cavinder twins or Louisana State University gymnast Olivia Dunne, who has 4 million followers on TikTok, could command endorsement deals in the millions of dollars from major brands. Last week, Alabama football coach Nick Saban said that sophomore quarterback Bryce Young, the team's presumptive starter, is already receiving nearly seven-figure offers for NIL deals. "And it's like, the guy hasn't even played yet," Saban said. "But that's because of our brand."

Confusing NIL rules

Clavio, who serves on Indiana University's NIL taskforce, a body advising the school on how it should handle these changes, said the NCAA had an opportunity to set standard rules across the board but deferred that responsibility to the states and individual universities to figure it out for themselves. "The NCAA had a chance to work on an actual solution and instead they punted and now essentially we're gonna see the market largely create its own realities," he said. "I think those realities could be vastly different from one school to the next or one state to the next."

NIL rules vary from state to state and university to university. Some states and institutions, for example, do not allow student-athletes to do NIL campaigns while wearing school uniforms or colors. Burke, for one, said she has to choose between signing up for TikTok's creator fund - a program that pays top creators per view - or cease wearing her Texas uniform in videos, which she doesn't want to do right now.

This confusion has begotten new market opportunities for businesses eager to help athletes cash in on their fame, and take a cut of the action.

"There is a whole cottage industry based around the name, image, likeness marketplace and compliance education and supplemental services that are selling to schools and athletes and brands," said Matt Brown, the author of the Extra Points newsletter, which covers off-the-field aspects of college sports. "Some are positioning themselves as experts in a space where it is impossible to be an expert," because universities are still writing rules and laws are only now going into effect.

"Every single Division I college athlete has a NIL value greater than zero," he said. "Anyone who tells you that athletes have no value is mistaken. However, it's going to be a job like anything else and in order for an athlete's value to be above a few hundred dollars, they're going to have to put some effort behind it."

Making a Cameo

Steven Galanis has been thinking about the NIL opportunity for college athletes since he co-founded his company Cameo in 2016. Galanis, now CEO, played hockey for Duke University, while his co-founder Martin Blencowe ran track at the University of Southern California. While around famous athletes at top universities, the pair saw the limits of college stardom.

"A lot of our best friends were these guys that had made so much money for their universities-people were wearing their jerseys, they were selling out stadiums, they were making more people apply to college," he said. "And they made zero dollars on it."

That, in part, inspired them to start Cameo, a $1 billion company that lets celebrities and influencers sell personalized shout-out videos to fans. Talent on the platform set their own prices and an appropriate response time. Saints quarterback Drew Brees charges $750 for a video, pop star Paula Abdul charges $449, and TV host Jerry Springer charges $135.

He thought the business model made a lot of sense for college athletes, who he never expected to get paid like pro athletes. "It was very clear that schools were never going to pay, so direct-to-fan monetization was the only way this was going to work," he says. To do this, Cameo partnered with INFLCR and Teamworks, two NIL-focused software companies, at the end of 2020.

Sports are now central to Cameo. The company has quickly added college athletes to its legions of talent. More than 280 college athletes are fully onboarded with 200 more in the pipeline, Cameo said, adding that they have completed more than 1,500 videos for fans so far. Kentucky basketball's Davion Mintz, Alabama softball's Montana Fouts, Notre Dame football's Kyle Hamilton, and Oklahoma gymnastics' Ragan Smith are among the most popular early entrants. Cameo has also been pushing its Cameo for Business solution, a way to connect talent with small and medium-sized businesses for commercial opportunities.

Galanis said his pitch to college athletes, pro athletes, and nonathletes is the same. "You're getting paid to be more famous," he said. "That person [receiving the video] becomes a bigger fan than they ever were before."

College athletes are ready

Burke has been preparing for the moment when she can make money off her NIL with the help of the University of Texas. The school has trained students for the NIL changes during the pandemic through its Leverage program, a series of classes aimed at helping students with personal branding, entrepreneurship, financial literacy, and, in the early days of NIL, compliance.

Brown, the University of Alabama professor, said that schools that help their students take advantage of their new earning power will be the biggest beneficiaries. Schools' policies and attitudes toward NIL could factor into recruiting, after all. "Obviously, they can't cut deals for them, but they can give athletes the tools necessary to take full advantage of these new opportunities," he said. "The schools that succeed will be the ones that empower their student-athletes, not hinder them."

Burke, who took advantage of the university's Leverage program, has already signed up with talent agency JS1, joined the athlete marketing platform OpenDorse, and inked a few brand deals most of which aren't yet public. On Cameo, she's charging for shout-out videos for fans and has already done one Instagram Stories campaign for the beauty retailer Vanity Planet for an undisclosed sum.

In our interview two weeks ago, Burke said these new rules are "completely life-changing" for many female athletes, especially ones without lucrative professional opportunities in their sport after college. "When people are hesitant about us making money, it's difficult for me to understand that because I don't have the opportunity to sign a multimillion-dollar contract post-college," says Burke. "I don't have that. I wish I did, but I don't have that opportunity."

Despite the growth of women's sports in the US, which saw TV ratings soar during the pandemic, sports like softball do not offer much in the way of professional opportunities. Even start softball players like Jennie Finch and fellow Texas Longhorn Cat Osterman, household names due to their Olympic success, have limited options to go pro. The average salary in America's premier professional softball league, National Pro Fastpitch, is reportedly $5,000, and the number of active teams in the league sometimes fluctuates from year to year.

But for Burke, the new rules mean a new kind of freedom. "It's our name, it's our image, and it's our likeness," she said. "We should be able to capitalize on it, profit off it, and represent whatever brands that we choose."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When America's college athletes could begin profiting off their personal brand for the first time this summer, Lauren Burke was ready. The 22-year-old rising senior on the University of Texas softball team had made a name for herself on the field and off.

# data[].attributes.body
C Decmeber 30th, 2021
R Yes it does answer my question becuase it shows me facts on why college athletes should be paid for playing a sport in college.
A Dan Whateley
A The information in this article is factual becasue the author who wrote this article is a
P The pourpus of this article is to inform people on why college athletes should be paid and if the colleges really think about it they can boost their players moral to play better for the money they are getting paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Student-athletes gained in 2021 the right to make money from their names, images, and likenesses.

The billion-dollar industry has exploded thanks to brand deals, startups, and donor-backed collectives.

Here's a breakdown of Insider's recent coverage of student-athlete marketing and NIL activity.

Name, image, and likeness, or NIL, has redefined college athletics in the past two years. Student-athlete influencers have become key parts of marketing strategies for companies and capitalized on their athletic performance to bring in previously unattainable levels of fame and fortune.

College athletes make money by posting branded content on social media and attending events with fans. A few athletes bring in millions of dollars in deals each year, but most athletes make a couple hundred dollars for attending an event or a social media campaign.

The NIL market is worth an estimated $1 billion annually, according to NIL company Opendorse. The industry's growth has been driven in large part by collectives. These donor-backed groups facilitate NIL opportunities like autograph signings and appearances at fundraisers and account for 80% of the money flowing to student-athletes.

Read more about the flow of NIL money in college sports

The remaining 20% comes from brand deals, per Opendorse. Men's basketball players make the most from brand deals, the company has found.

In addition to collectives, new startups and existing companies have popped up and pivoted to become major players in the space, helping athletes design and sell their own merchandise, connect with brands for campaigns, and make money on jersey sales.
Read more about the startups and companies shaping NIL
How NIL became a major factor in college athletics

On July 1, 2021, after a decades-long fight, student-athletes across the country gained the right to make money from their NIL thanks to a flurry of new state laws and an NCAA policy change.

What happened next was a mad rush of student-athletes, small businesses, national brands, and startups looking to cash in.

Some athletes in widely followed sports scored deals worth five or six figures. But many of the 460,000-plus student-athletes across the US ended up working with local businesses like restaurants or participating in one-off marketing campaigns with bigger brands, and receiving free products, gift cards, or smaller cash payments, rather than big paydays, for their NIL promotions.
Read how much college football player Phoenix Sproles earned in the first year of NIL
In addition to brand deals, student-athletes have run branded training clinics and have been paid for appearances and autograph signings.

Many of these fan engagement events have been put on by collectives, or donor-backed groups that have popped up at most colleges and universities to organize NIL opportunities for student-athletes.

Many collectives were founded during the first year of NIL but gained footing in year two. Though some in the industry condemn these organizations as "pay for play" models, collectives say their existence is necessary to remain competitive in recruiting, leaders of these organizations have told Insider.
Read more about how NIL collectives pay student-athletes Read more about how student-athletes with small social-media followings are cashing in on the NIL gold rush Read more about how the company boosted social-media engagement by hiring college athletes from niche sports like golf and cheerleading , fundraise, and more from leaders of two of these groups
"It's become a recruiting advantage to be a school that's more permissive with NIL activities," Kristi Dosh, a consultant and writer who founded BusinessofCollegeSports.com, previously told Insider.

Unlike professional influencers, college athletes tend to have small audiences on social media. In the influencer world, these athletes would be classified as "micro" (generally under 100,000 followers) or "nano" (generally under 10,000) influencers - an area of increasing focus for marketers.

And it's not just college athletes who are benefitting; some athletes are signing brand deals while they're still in high school.

One company that leaned into nano-influencer marketing for its first student-athlete campaign was The Vitamin Shoppe, which ran a campaign with 14 college players, all with under 10,000 Instagram followers.

Some college athletes have become social media stars, especially female students. While USC's Bronny James has made the most from NIL, stars like LSU's Olivia Dunne and Angel Reese have amassed millions of followers across platforms, leading to big payouts and six-figure brand deals. Women's basketball players have an especially high engagement rate, with athletes including Paige Bueckers, Caitlin Clark and Flau'jae Johnson becoming household names in NIL.
Read more about Captiv8's study on student-athletes outperforming standard influencers on social media
How much student-athletes are earning and how they get NIL deals

The student-athletes who are already making life-changing money tend to play for Power Five schools. But some players have leveraged their brands to create content and gain significant followings.

Insider spoke with several student-athletes to learn how they built their followings and secured deals, how much money they make, and what materials they use to pitch themselves to brands.
Read more about how NIL and the transfer portal have impacted March Madness
Learn how much student-athletes have made from NIL deals:

Check out the documents and outreach templates they use to land brand partnerships:

Student-athletes are the 'best-performing subset of influencers'

A July 2022 study by influencer marketing company Captiv8 showed that student-athletes have outperformed the engagement benchmarks of standard influencers on social media through the first year of the NIL rules.
Read more about how colleges are taking steps to limit the deals student-athletes make with brands, as they look to protect their own sponsorships
"We started to see anecdotal evidence of athletes outperforming influencers by wide margins," Captiv8's director of partnerships, Bryce Adams, told Insider. "The results of the study showed us that college athletes are the best-performing subset of influencers available right now to brands."

Captiv8's study compared standard influencer benchmarks on Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter with data on 312 student-athletes. It showed that student-athletes received two times more engagement on Instagram, five times more on TikTok, and 12 times more on TikTok.

A recent study from Opendorse found that freshmen had the biggest earnings in the second year of NIL, bringing home 521% more per deal than the year before, the platform's NIL and business insights manager Braly Keller told Insider. The freshmen earned twice as much money per deal on average than all other grade levels, the report found.

Big events like March Madness can bring massive popularity and NIL deals
Read Insider's list of the Colin Salao contributed additional reporting. 20 NIL companies helping student-athletes, colleges and universities, collectives, and brands navigate an ever-changing industry
The first March Madness tournament following NIL saw big returns for athletes. Some brands reached out to athletes as the tournament progressed like Buffalo Wild Wings' deal with St. Peter's University star Doug Edert as he led the No. 15 Peacocks to the Elite Eight.

In March 2023, most of the teams in the Final Four already had lucrative deals under their belts and strong NIL collectives backing them.

But unprecedented viewership and popularity for women's basketball translated to social media: LSU's Reese gained more than 650,000 followers during the tournament and has since signed deals with companies including Amazon, Airbnb, and PlayStation.

Marketers are navigating a patchwork of regulations

Still, colleges, student-athletes, and brands are still trying to navigate a web of state laws and university guidelines around what players are and aren't allowed to do with their names, images, and likenesses.

Some colleges and universities have developed policies to stop student-athletes from making brand deals that would interfere with their own lucrative sponsorship contracts.

A deal requiring an athlete to "wear products competitive to Nike during team activities - ex. practices, competitions, media, team travel, community service, photo sessions, team-building activities, etc." could violate Ohio State's rules, for example. The university also said students should not "promote beverages competitive to Coca-Cola on-campus."

"It is messy," Blake Lawrence, CEO of sports-marketing platform Opendorse, previously told Insider. "If a student-athlete at an Adidas school that signs a deal with, let's say, Lululemon shows up to a press conference with a Lululemon hat and shirt on, is that a violation of the team's contract with Adidas? Those are the things that people are trying to figure out."

Startups and other companies are shaping the future of NIL

As with any new industry that has a variety of regulations, a wave of startups and established companies have rushed in to help universities, student-athletes, and brands succeed in the field and avoid missteps.

Numerous marketplaces have been established to help athletes and brands find one another. Companies like Opendorse, OpenSponsorship, and Postgame allow brands to post a campaign just like a job listing, after which athletes can apply and track the deal progress through the platform.

Student-athletes can design and sell their own merchandise through platforms like NIL Store and Nillie.

Learfield, a firm that helps schools monetize their IP in categories like digital media and stadium signage, has added NIL sponsorships and student-athlete storytelling to its brand work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How NIL deals and brand sponsorships are helping college athletes make money

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NIL deals and brand sponsorships are helping college athletes get paid. The name, image, and likeness recognition is ensuring players get a share.

# data[].attributes.body
C March 4th,2021
R The Information for this topic does not answer my question it is a countercliam for my claim.
A Guest Author
A The information from this article is inforamtional wich means it is factual and the facts for this article are verified.
P The purpous of this article is to infor the public and officals on why its a bad idea to pay college athletes and why they should get paid when they hit the pros.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why College Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid Opinion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Student-athletes and money matters are two irreconcilable differences that are always surrounded by arguments and debates. Some sports experts believe that top prospects should be paid since they are the future of the sport. While representatives of educational establishments believe it would not be fair to pay them, while other students get no monetary benefits. Let’s overlook the most sound cons of providing compensation to college athletes. You should try BetWinner.

# data[].attributes.body
C June 21st, 2021
R No it does not it answer my question by showing me and telling me why college athletes should or shouldn't be paid by playing a college sport
A Tim Mullaney
A Yes the information is factual by telling me why it is bad to pay college athletes.
P The purpose is to inform the reader why the college should not pay college sport players.

# data[].attributes.body
C April 15th, 2013
R Yes it answers my question by telling me why college athletes should be paid
A Loretta8
A  The information in this article about the video is factual to what topic i am researching.
P The purpose is to pursuade officals into thinking about why college athletes should be. Getting paid more than what they are paid when joining the team and that is all they get paid for being a college athlete.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the last few years, the movement to pay college athletes has gained significant momentum, thanks in part to Taylor Branch's brilliant 2011 article eviscerating the college sports system and Ed O'Bannon's lawsuit against the NCAA for profiting off his image in video games without paying him. This is a good thing, because to any reasonable person, it is outrageous that college athletes, in particular football and men's basketball players, not only get zero percent of the billions of dollars in revenue they generate, but also aren't allowed to make a dime in profit off their skills from any source at all. Unfortunately, a disturbingly large percentage of fans, journalists, coaches and administrators continue to defend this indefensible system.

It doesn't take much effort to find these people. Whether it's Seth Davis's wrongheaded criticism of Branch's article, or Bob Stoops effectively telling his broke players " if you're going hungry, too bad, you're not the only ones," or Jim Delany putting a gun to his own conference's head and pulling the old Blazing Saddles " keep the players broke or the Big Ten gets it!" trick, you can always find an argument against paying players that's either ridiculous (Davis), heartless and paternalistic (Stoops), or a straight-up cynical ploy to maintain a profit margin (Delaney).

To see just how crazy the current system is, let's try to imagine what would happen if the music industry came under the NCAA umbrella. Flash back to 1992, when Andre Benjamin and Antwan Patton, two Atlanta high school students, meet and form the hip-hop group OutKast. They release their number 1 single "Player's Ball" in 1993, and it's clear the two are on the way to superstardom. But as amateurs, they are not allowed to make any money and have to go to college for three years (say, at Georgia) before being eligible to be drafted by a professional label. While at college, they release ATLiens and Aquemini, but because they are still amateurs, they cannot profit from these wildly successful albums. When they are finally allowed to become professionals, they reach their peak fame with "Hey-Ya!" in 2003, but are still not allowed to profit off the success of their "amateur" songs and albums. Meanwhile, Georgia and whatever company produced those songs and albums makes a killing in royalties.

Such a system does not exist for musicians, because such a system makes no logical sense to anyone. Not even someone who supports the NCAA would ever support a system in which supremely talented young musicians and actors were not allowed to be paid. Yet somehow, due to a combination of ignorance, stupidity, jealousy and selfishness, these same people support an identical system for athletes.

Others have already spent considerable time obliterating the arguments from the don't-pay-the-players crowd ( this Q&A with Sports On Earth's Patrick Hruby is very good), but there's one in particular I want to focus on, and that's the argument that players are already paid with an education, and that this education is sufficient (all three of the pieces arguing against paying players linked above make that point). There are several problems with this logic.

First of all, education is not money. While a scholarship unquestionably has significant value, it cannot be exchanged for money. A student who comes from a poor family cannot use the "payment" of education to help feed his family, and if he tries to borrow money from anyone for this purpose, he will get suspended on the eve of the biggest game of his career. Click that link. Jamar Samuels wasn't allowed to play in a tournament that CBS and Turner paid the NCAA billions of dollars to broadcast because he accepted $200 to feed his family. He was "paid" in education while everyone else involved was paid in cash.

But more significantly, an education is a nebulous form of payment because of the wildly different academic backgrounds of Division I athletes. If a kid is good enough, most schools will accept him no matter how poor his academic track record is and how ill-suited he is to attend college. Although 30% of high school graduates do not attend college, as far as I can tell, every single top prospect in both basketball and football is able to get into college. From Ohio State stand-out point guard and pre-med student Aaron Craft to Oklahoma State's illiterate star defensive end Dexter Manley and everyone in between, if you can play, a big-time program will find a spot for you. And for guys like Manley, an "education" is basically worthless if you cannot read.

Manley's case is certainly rare, but it's quite typical for players to either be clearly unfit for admission at an institution of higher education ( like a UNC player who plagiarized 11 year olds) or be steered into completely useless classes in which they learn nothing and do no work ( like the infamous Jim Harrick Jr. course at Georgia that featured a final exam question asking how many points a 3-pointer was worth). So the education may be worth something to the top students like Craft, but for many athletes, it's worth little to nothing. Paying someone who's illiterate with a college education is like paying a homeless guy with a 50 inch plasma TV; the TV may be worth $1000 to someone who likes watching sports or movies, but for the homeless guy, it's worth nothing.

But even if the colleges and universities in question stayed true to their purpose as institutions of higher education and only admitted qualified students and made sure those students took real classes, being paid in education alone still wouldn't be enough. There are no other businesses in which the people doing the actual work don't get paid. In fact, there are plenty of boosters out there who are more than willing to pay players, yet the NCAA and the schools involved actively collude to keep them from being paid. This is not only morally wrong, it's clearly a violation of American laws forbidding monopolies, anti-competitive collusion, and price-fixing. It should be obvious to anyone with a clue that the system is wrong. I recall explaining major college sports to a friend of mine, a young woman born and raised in China who had just come to Boston for school. I told her that college sports are almost as popular here as professional sports, yet the players are only given a scholarship, and her jaw literally dropped. She couldn't believe that the players were forbidden from being paid. "I thought this was the Land of the Free?!?!" she exclaimed, without irony.

So there you go, defenders of this nonsense. You're supporting an economic policy so outrageous that it shocked someone from a Communist country. Some of you support it because you are jealous of incredibly talented players getting a free education while you had to pay for yours because you weren't incredibly talented at anything. Some of you support it because you fear the changes that would inevitably result, selfishly caring more about yourself than changing a incredibly unjust system. And some of you are just hopelessly foolish or ignorant and will never accept reason.

As for how much the players should be paid and by whom, I really don't care, as long as they are given reasonable compensation. Give them a cut of the revenues generated, go to the Olympic model where they can accept endorsements and payment from third parties, give them an hourly wage, whatever. Just give them something. And more importantly, stop supporting a system that is obviously wrong. Bomani Jones on his podcast said this best a while ago, in a lengthy rant that you can listen to in its entirety here (the part I quoted starts at around 14:30):

If you don't agree with me [that players should be paid], you're wrong. I don't mean that you're wrong as in like factually being wrong, I mean like inside of who you are, you are wrong, you are reprehensibly wrong.....I don't see any way in the world that you can argue the idea that people put in work and don't get paid a currency that the market should bear out, and we're not talking about star NBA players making 14, 15 million dollars and having their wages capped, we're talking about guys that can't get anything at all, and the reason is this collusion by all the schools to keep them broke. Either you on the side over here with me and mine, or you're wrong, you're wrong inside, you're wrong as a person, and you are wrong logically, and if you are one of those people who believe that capitalism is a core principle of this country, then you are also wrong as an American, I can tell you a zillion levels on which YOU. ARE. WRONG. and me and my side is right, and if you just wanna be wrong, that's cool, but someone's gotta look you dead in your grill and tell you: YOU. ARE. WRONG....and if that's what it is and you just want to ride out with it, then ride out with it, but ride out with the knowledge that you're wrong and you just don't care, and don't come in my face talking about anything moral on any level ever again, because you are consciously making the decision to be on the side of wrong....you just tell me, if you pay someone with something they can't spend, while you know they're out hungry, while you know some of these cats can't afford to drive cars and stuff like that, and on top of that you know there's efforts made at every turn to KEEP. THEM. BROKE....you know this at every single turn, and you know that on the back end, people are out here getting paid millions of dollars off their backs...tell me how you don't know that you're wrong.

Jones' attitude is the perfect response to this "debate", because there shouldn't be a debate. If Jones is ever on ESPN in some contrived debate about whether or not to pay players, I hope he takes that some tone to anyone arguing the other side, because being on the other side is not acceptable. You are obviously in the wrong if you think the current system is okay, as obviously wrong as if you think racism is okay, or think having sex with someone without their consent is okay. Just as obviously, collusion and price-fixing are not nearly as evil as racism or rape, but all of them are equally indefensible. And someday, when Ed O'Bannon or someone like him beats the NCAA in court and players start getting paid like they should, we will look back on the days when college athletes weren't paid while others made millions off their backs as an embarrassing chapter in our history as Americans that we took too long to rectify. And if you somehow still don't agree with players being paid, look yourself in the mirror and realize just how wrong you are, and try to find some logic and compassion within yourself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If You're Against Paying Players, You're Wrong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the last few years, the movement to pay college athletes has gained significant momentum, thanks in part to Taylor Branch's brilliant 2011 article eviscerating the college sports system and Ed O'Bannon's lawsuit against the NCAA for profiting off his image in video games without paying him.

# data[].attributes.body
C April 3rd, 2013
R The info does not answer my question because i'm using it as my counterclaim so my argument will be complete with this article.
A Zach Dirlam
A Yes It is factual and shows why college athletes should not be paid and shows the downside of a collage paying for athletes paychecks and how it can change how they play the game and how they win games.
P The purpose of this picture is to inform people on why its bad to pay collage athletes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
Over 20 years ago, the rise of the Fab Five basketball team at the University of Michigan helped spark what is now one of the most debated topics in all of sports.

Should college athletes get a piece of the $871.6 million pie the NCAA brings in annually?

The answer is simple: No, absolutely not.

College athletes are already being paid with an athletic scholarship that is worth between $20-$50,000 per year.

Oh, and that does not even begin to factor in the medical and travel expenses, free gear, top-notch coaching, unlimited use of elite athletic facilities and a national stage to audition for a job in the professional ranks.

All of those perks are paid for in full by the universities these athletes choose to attend.

Before attempting to discredit some of the cases for compensating players at the college level, let's take into account all of the things they already receive cost-free.

Athletic scholarships cover just about everything a student-athlete needs to survive for four years at a major university. Campus housing, daily medical care and free meals via training table are all included. Tuition and books are covered as well.

None of those things are cheap. It costs $57,180 to attend Duke University. The University of Texas charges $35,776 for out-of-state enrollees. Even Butler University charges $31,496 per year.

Leaving a four-year college with a degree will help former players earn more money than those who only have a high school diploma, regardless of whether or not they move on to a professional sports career.

Traveling around the world is another privilege these student-athletes are afforded.

Some people scrolling through this article can only dream of being able to visit any of those locations.

Each and every athlete will leave their university free of debt. I'm willing to bet some of you reading this are still paying off college loans, or took quite a while to do so.

Heck, I have racked up over $80,000 in tuition fees over the past four years in college. I work in an athletic department to help pay off my debts. Athletes pay theirs off by going to practice and performing in games.

Even still, there are several arguments people come up with for why college athletes deserve a paycheck on top of the numerous benefits they are already being given.
The Fair Market Value Argument
This is one of the more common stances pay-for-play supporters take. The idea that players are not being paid their " fair market value," however, is a complete myth.

The two sports impacted by this argument the most are football and basketball, because their revenue funds just about every other varsity team at most universities.

These athletes have to be worth millions, right? Wrong. College athletes are not worth a single cent on the open market, at least until they are eligible for the NBA or NFL draft.

Changes to the NBA draft eligibility requirements brought an end to high school athletes heading straight to the professional ranks. Now, NBA hopefuls must be one year removed from high school to enter the draft.

Every student-athlete knows they cannot get paid in college, but if they do not like it there are other options.

The Compton, CA product was drafted 10th by the Milwaukee Bucks after playing one season overseas.

Much like the foreign basketball associations, the Canadian Football League does not have an age requirement. High school graduates wishing to play pro football can head north and sign a contract right away.

Instead of choosing this route, though, NFL and NBA hopefuls take their talents to the NCAA. The media exposure, coaching and training provided by the universities is far better than the athletes will receive in foreign markets. Going to classes is simply the tradeoff for reaping these benefits.

In my opinion, if an athlete is talented enough, professional scouts will draft them whenever they become eligible. I am truly surprised most of the top high school athletes do not choose to play overseas. I mean, they feel they are good enough to be paid, right? Go prove it.
Paying College Athletes Will Eliminate Scandals
Paying players will not eliminate any of the greed or determination to win at all costs that exists in today's society. Cheating will never stop, and it existed at the NCAA level well before the era of modern technology.

Henry Beach Needham outlined some fairly alarming issues college athletics faced in its early years in a 1905 piece titled " The College Athlete", which was published in McLure's Magazine. The biggest scandal at the time was Columbia University paying non-students to compete.

Scandals are nothing new to the NCAA, and paying players will not purify these dirty waters.

I hate seeing these improper benefits scandals as much as the next person, but if we are being honest, the history proves there will always be some form of cheating going on. Paying athletes is not going to provide a solution for these problems.
The NCAA Has More Than Enough Money to Pay Players
Although the NCAA reels in over $800 million per year, 81 percent of which comes from television and marketing-rights fees, the organization continues to be non-profit.

How is this possible? An astounding 96 percent of the revenue the NCAA brings in annually is redistributed to its members' institutions.

This is done through donations to academic enhancement, conference grants, sports sponsorships, student assistance funds and grants-in-aid. A percentage of the revenue is also added to the basketball fund, which is divided up and distributed to the NCAA tournament field on a yearly basis.

The universities themselves are not exactly rolling in wads of cash, either. Last year, only 22 athletic departments were profitable. Football and basketball bring in the dough, and every other college sport survives as a result.

Remember this year's Cinderella story in March Madness, the Florida Gulf Coast Eagles? The university nearly lost money as a result of their run to the Sweet 16.

Two years ago, the Division I Board of Directors approved a $2,000 stipend for college athletes to cover the " full cost of attendance." Less than two months later, the NCAA's member institutions repealed the stipend, because they could not afford it.

College athletics may sound like a great business, but in reality only the top-tier programs are churning out a profit.

I do not agree with everything the NCAA does. However, the evidence shows it is not the booming business everyone thinks it is.
Is There Any Common Ground?
The pay-for-play debate will have its day in federal court in July 2014, thanks to a class-action lawsuit filed by former UCLA Bruins basketball star Ed O'Bannon.

Change may very well be on the horizon for how college athletes' likenesses can be marketed and distributed. The lawsuit is seeking a "50-50 split for telecasts and a one-third split for video games."

Despite the fact that I completely disagree with paying student-athletes, O'Bannon's case does make an outstanding point. There is no reason why EA Sports should be able to make an NCAA football or basketball game, replicate the players in every way except for their names and not pay them any money.

Television rights are a bit tricky, since the NCAA does not have a players' union. The universities would be able to make these lucrative telecast contracts no matter who comes in or out of the program for the next several years, because of how well established the conferences are.

If college athletes do wind up receiving money from the O'Bannon lawsuit, I think it should only be distributed to players who actually graduate. This is still college sports after all.

Such an incentive would help the NCAA in its goal to improve the Academic Progress Rate for all member institutions.

In addition, "full cost of attendance" should be covered for those who can actually prove it is a necessity. Not every college athlete comes from a poor home, but the ones who do deserve a need-based stipend.

To regulate this, the NCAA will have to establish which players qualify based on their family's income. If the player's family falls below whatever dollar amount the NCAA decides on, give them the $2,000 stipend.

O'Bannon's lawsuit will bring change to college sports, for better or worse.

For the time being, though, student-athletes are already receiving plenty of compensation from their respective universities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
There's No Crying in College: The Case Against Paying College Athletes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over 20 years ago, the rise of the Fab Five basketball team at the University of Michigan helped spark what is now one of the most debated topics in all of sports. Should college athletes get a piece of the $871...

# data[].attributes.body
C October 15th, 2019
R Yes, this picture answers the question im asking and the question i'm asking is college athletes should be paid?
A Jordan Helmbrecht, Staff Writer
A Yes there is links to the source were they are pulling it from is a offical site that they are pulling these facts from.
P The purpose is to inform the reader why college athletes should be paid and how it can benefit them and motivate them in the long run when they go pro.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The spark that really ignited this question was a statement by the state of California that claimed that these college players should, in fact, get paid. California was so confident in their opinion that they presented a new law regarding college sports.

This future California law states that college athletes will now be allowed to hire agents and, furthermore, be paid for endorsements and the use of their images or even their name. This bold decision led to a major breakout crisis within the NCAA with differing opinions leaving big questions.

The NCAA has always had regulations that ban this exact thing, hence why chaos erupted around the announcement. The California law is not supposed to be put into effect until 2023, but it was organized in a way where even though it violates the NCAA regulations, the organization could not punish them.

However, this controversy is nothing new. For years, there has been the debate over whether or not college athletes should get paid. There are several aspects to each side of the argument, copious reasons to back up each side. Yet, what once used to be just an ongoing argument now must be faced in reality due to California's power move.

Many people who are for college athletes getting paid back up their opinion with two things. One, they bring up the point that is not these players getting paid, rather their coaches are getting millions. Second, they compare these college athletics to professional athletics who also get paid millions.

But, my question is are they not indirectly getting paid?

Think about it. Most college athletes head into college on full rides, meaning their committed college is paying for basically every ounce of college costs. Depending on the school, this can mean that these athletes are getting up to hundreds of thousands of dollars paid for them, as well as their education.

Furthermore, these big-time college athletes also travel quite often. And no, they do not pay to travel. This means that colleges are paying to take these athletes all around the country while the athletes just get to enjoy the ride.

Overall, these college athletes are sent off to college without having to worry about money. There are hundreds of thousands of students around the country that have to worry about college costs, and being a committed college athlete takes away that worry. These colleges are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars that college athletes will never have to pay back.

The whole idea of college athletes getting paid also comes down to the core of college sports. College sports are so different compared to professional sports, and a great deal of that comes from the fact that they do not get paid.

People enjoy watching college sports because they are unfiltered. The players don't play for the money they earn, they play because they love what they are doing. The desire to win comes from a genuine drive, a pure want to win for the team you're playing for, not a desire to win to get paid more money.

College is the time for these athletes to just play because they love what they are doing. If they decide to go pro, then they have all the years they want to get paid. If college athletes begin getting paid as the pros do, there will be little distinction that separates the pro leagues from the college leagues.

Earning money so early could also harm these athletes. It can be dangerous to present a lot of money to young people, especially athletes; it tarnishes their authenticity. If you look at a large group of paid professional players, you can find an abundance that were ruined by their money. If we give these young athletes money before they are ready, they could lose the pure players that they are.

Most importantly, paying college athletes takes away the whole purpose of college. While college athletes do have different experiences than other students, their years at school still serve as this preparation phase of life.

If they were to get paid, these athletes could miss this whole section of life where they find out who they will be in the world. They could miss the important lessons that college teaches, no matter who you are. College is many students' first look at the real world, at real life. It is where they learn to work for the things they want to succeed at. If these young athletes were to get paid, they could entirely miss out on this essential message. In essence, paying college athletes defeats the entire purpose of college.

College sports are unique because the players do not get paid-it's a key reason why people love watching these young athletes compete. Many of them will have the opportunity to get paid for playing later on in their lives, but despite conflicting opinions, paying them while they play college sports is completely unnecessary and could ruin what makes college sports the special athletics that they are.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An old controversial flame has caught fire in these recent months-should college athletes get paid? The spark that really ignited this question was a statement by the state of California that claimed that these college players should, in fact, get paid. California was so confident in their opinion that they presented a new law regarding...

# data[].attributes.body
C November 23rd, 2013
R No, it answers my Counter claim on why college athletes should not be paid.
A Webmaster
A Yes the information for this video is informational and is from a news source and and is factual the topic I am researching for this padlet.
P The purpose is to inform people on why college athletes should not be paid and how it could hurt there performance in games.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Ed O'Bannon suit against the NCAA may create a means for student-athletes to receive payment in the future, and it could severely damage college athletics.
O'Bannon, on behalf of Division I football and men's basketball players, is challenging the NCAA in a class action lawsuit because of its propensity for using images of former student-athletes for commercial purposes.

O'Bannon argues that once a student-athlete graduates, he should receive some sort of financial compensation for the NCAA's commercial uses of a student-athlete's image.

O'Bannon played college basketball at UCLA and played in the NBA for three seasons before playing professionally overseas until 2004.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken partially certified a class action suit against the NCAA. As a result, there's been speculation that student-athletes might receive financial compensation in the future or be forced to join a trade association that would negotiate contracts for student-athletes.

The grassroots organization of associations like this began immediately after Wilken's order to certify a class action against the NCAA.

There are still a lot of questions that need to be asked regarding the future of the NCAA and the ramifications of the O'Bannon lawsuit. Many of those answers depend on the outcome of O'Bannon v. NCAA.

The NCAA has many faults, but its refusal to pay college athletes is not one of them.

Regardless of the class-action lawsuit, student-athletes receive free world-class educations and are provided with elite training and coaching in their respective sports.

The Baylor undergraduate cost for taking 12 or more hours (which all NCAA student-athletes must do in order to remain eligible) will be $49,028 for the 2014-2015 academic year.

Considering that a student-athlete receives five years of education to play four seasons, a student-athlete earns roughly a $200,000 to $250,000 education at Baylor without having to write a check.

Not to mention the countless other benefits student-athletes have. Student-athletes receive free books, a housing stipend, a meal plan and other benefits.

Also, student-athletes have their own academic center at Baylor with free tutoring and academic advising.

Baylor student-athletes also have an entire student-athlete services staff to lean on for support. Student-athletes gain access to any class they need because of their status as a student-athlete.

On top of all of that, why should student-athletes be paid? Granted, some exceptional student-athletes generate massive amounts of revenue for their respective schools, such as Tim Tebow at Florida, Robert Griffin III at Baylor or Johnny Manziel at Texas A&M, just to name a few. But Tebow, RG3 and Manziel are exceptions to the rule. Most student-athletes are not stars, and most do not generate any revenue for their universities.

If O'Bannon wins his suit against the NCAA, it would open up Pandora's box for NCAA athletics.

Trade associations would become possible for student-athletes, much like professional sports have players unions. College athletes would have contracts that could be negotiated.

Contrary to popular belief, most college athletics programs, as a whole, lose money on athletics. Football generates revenue but that revenue is often dispersed to nonrevenue generating sports like soccer, volleyball, track, cross country, baseball and softball.

Only 23 of 228 athletic departments at NCAA Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012, according to USA Today.

Considering that 203 out of 228 schools lose money on athletics, and considering that student-athletes already receive an education and benefits valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars, student-athletes should not be paid.

With universities already losing money to sustain athletics programs, paying athletes would only exacerbate the problem and is an unnecessary option. If colleges paid athletes, it would inevitably raise the cost for students and burn an even larger hole in everyone's checkbook.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Editorial: NCAA athletes shouldn't get paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Ed O'Bannon suit against the NCAA may create a means for student-athletes to receive payment in the future, and it could severely damage college athletics. O'Bannon, on behalf of Division I football and men's basketball players, is challenging the NCAA in a class action lawsuit because of its propensity for using images of former student-athletes for commercial purposes.