# data[].attributes.body
It was published on March 8 of 2019 never revised ever since. it is a debate between if college athlete should or shouldn't get paid. The main author or commentator is Stephan A Smith on youtube.com espn. It informs and tries to persuade you

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is it time to pay college athletes after the Zion Williamson allegations? | First Take

# data[].attributes.body
It was published on April 8 of 2019 hasn't been published ever since. Its a debate about if athletes  should be or not. The main author Stephan A. Smith the site is youtube.com. It informs and tries to persuade you

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Paying the players would make college sports more fair – Stephen A. | First Take

# data[].attributes.body
It was published on August 26 of 2011 hasn't been revised since . It agrees with my topic that athletes should get paid to play. My author is Aaron Smith the site is dreamingofheros.com. There were not any spelling or grammar errors in the article. It inform you and tries to persuade you into thinking that athletes should get paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Student A: This student was no Einstein in high school. He worked hard, however, earning a 3.5 GPA during the course of his high school years. He played basketball, but not very well. He once earned a state science fair award for cloning alfalfa (yet to this day cannot describe how he did it). He was a member of the National Honor Society. He was never arrested and only had one beer while in high school. He went to the principal's office twice in his four years of high school -- once for depancing his friend in gym class and once to receive information on being named Student of the Month (not the same month as the prior incident). He graduated in the top 5 percent of his class. He went to an instate university with $0 scholarship money and a good work ethic. He worked three jobs every year to make ends meet. He earned a degree and graduated with a mountain of debt and a job that paid just $20,000 a year.

Student B: This student came from a poor family. No one in his family had ever gone to college. His dad wasn't around and only sometimes sent checks. His mom wanted him to work at a construction company with his uncle even though he'd rather teach and coach football. His GPA during high school was 2.5. His high school counselor told him college prep wasn't for him; he knew he wouldn't be able to afford college anyway. He played football successfully, but not well enough for colleges to come calling. He once was suspended for drinking beer on school property. He worked during that week off and made enough money to go on spring break. He graduated in the top half of his class. He did not attend college, but earned a decent living working for his uncle in the construction business. He still lives at home and hates his job, wishing he could have gone to college.

Student C: This student was remarkable on the football field and on the basketball court. His quarterback rating far surpassed his GPA, which was a lazy 1.5. He probably could have done better, but his teachers (and family) never held him accountable. He passed and got whatever grades would allow him to suit up on Friday nights. He should have been arrested for stealing but the officer that caught him with the six pack used to go to his high school and wanted his team to win on Friday. He got a slap on the wrist. He graduated in the bottom 15 percent of his class (which was a gift from the school) and was recruited to play football at one of the most prestigious private universities in the country. He attended the school despite his very low SAT scores, but started every game as a freshman, leading his team to a conference title and a bowl victory. Over the course of his three years in college (to no one's surprise, he left school as early as he could to play in the NFL) he never paid a cent for tuition, room, or board. He left school with zero debt, a ton of exposure, and a new multimillion dollar contract to play football.

Now, one of those students is suing the NCAA while his handlers are crying foul because he wasn't allowed to earn money as a college student. Never mind the new condo his parents were given by a school booster. This student claimed that he was "like a slave" because he didn't get paid for the work he did while in college. He calls himself a poor college student. He talks of struggling to get by.

Sadly, that student is Student C. And sadly, there are a lot of media members and college athletics groupies who are screaming from their pulpits demanding that college athletes get paid.

I am Student A, and I find that appalling.

Student C received a scholarship that totaled more than $100,000. He "earned" that by not doing any homework. He "earned" that by disrespecting the law. He "earned" that by convincing teachers to let him slide by. Some may call me bitter. Some may call me jealous. That's fine. I really don't care. All I'm saying is that for someone to get free tuition to a stellar university, a free place to live, and free food all the while complaining because he feels like a "slave" or that he "is being used" is utterly ridiculous, not to mention offensive. No you should not be paid; you are already getting free education (which apparently you are not using -- look up slavery and maybe you'll change your tune).

No you should not be paid; you are already getting free tattoos, or $100 handshakes from obsessive boosters, or a different sports car every new season. I drove an old Dodge Neon that broke down often. I had to pick up a third job bagging groceries at Kroger just to make enough money to get it fixed so that I could work at my other two jobs. No, I didn't have to walk uphill both ways to work, but you get the point ... hopefully.

And now I have to listen to Student C complain about how he had to scrape by? Please. Don't waste my time. Some people, like Student B, cannot even afford college. The way tuition is rising, even those who want to go will have to settle for something they do not really want to do. College is a pipe dream for some -- not because they can't hack it, but rather the amount of money it takes to go anymore is unbelievably high. And far too many students who made it to college through hard work are still paying off their college debts 10 years later. College isn't free (for most), so when I hear people calling themselves slaves while shrugging off the six figures they are receiving for going to college, I tend to get a little annoyed.

Now, not all college athletes are like Student C. Many work extremely hard in the classroom and earn their degrees while excelling on the court or field. Those students are admirable and will go on to be successful whether in sports or in something else. But that doesn't change my view on the hot topic of whether or not collegiate athletes should be paid -- because they already are getting paid.

It's called a scholarship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Student A: This student was no Einstein in high school. He worked hard, however, earning a 3.5 GPA during the course of his high school years. He played basketball, but not very well. He once earned a state science fair award for cloning alfalfa (yet to this day cannot describe how he did it).

# data[].attributes.body
It doesn't say when it was published. it agrees with my topic that they should be paid in college. The author is Colin Brechwald the site is Pintrest.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCAA greed in college football | Editorial cartoon, Political cartoons, Politcal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Pin was discovered by Colin Brechwald. Discover (and save!) your own Pins on Pinterest.

# data[].attributes.body
It was published on the 20 of February, 2019. It agrees with my topic saying that they bring millions of dollars and 99.9 don't get a dime of the money. The author is Emily Ciganik and the site is sites.psu.edu. There weren't any grammar or spelling errors. It informs you that college athletes should be paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's no secret. Colleges and universities generate hundreds of millions of dollars off of their sports programs, namely from football and basketball. However, the student-athletes themselves do not see any of that money. The debate has never been greater: should college athletes get paid?

Those who believe college athletes should be paid argue that they are "employees", as they commit just as much time, if not more, to their respective sports than the average person does with their job. In fact, a study showed that the common division one college football player devotes over 43 hours per week to the sport, over 3 hours more than the average American works each week (Forbes). Not only are they committing time, they are also sacrificing the risk of a career ending injury. Secondly, these athletes are forced to miss a substantial amount of class time in-season, as they are travelling to and playing in games. This makes it extremely demanding on them to balance both school and sports, and these people think they should be compensated for it. In addition, many of the coaches get paid millions of dollars each year for the same amount of expected commitment as the players. Nick Saban, the coach of the national champion Alabama Crimson Tide, raked in more than a whopping seven million dollars in 2015! More is that the Alabama athletic department totaled $143.3 Million in revenue this year, and the student-athletes don't see any of this money, despite being the main reason for the revenue (Forbes).

Those who oppose student-athletes getting paid believe that these athletes are attending school to first and foremost get an education. Having the opportunity to receive a world-class college education for no cost is enough payment for their commitment to their respective sports. Included in this "full ride" are books, food, health services, and a seemingly endless amount of high-end gear. Many athletes also get priority scheduling, tutoring, and housing over the students who are paying full tuition to attend. Furthermore, these people believe that paying the athletes would make them "athlete-students", as opposed to the student athletes that they are supposed to be. In terms of the college football game, paying athletes would take away recruiting, which is a major aspect of the game. Many hold the belief that recruiting is the main reason college football is so competitive. If athletes were paid, all of the top recruits would just go to the powerhouse school that could offer them the most money. This would make college football less appealing, getting away from the unpredictable and exciting game that we as fans love. The same goes for basketball.

I am a student at Penn State paying full tuition, however I have many close friends who play college sports, including two who play football at Villanova University, and one who plays baseball at Rice University, so I can see certain aspects of both sides of the debate. My initial opinion on this issue is that student-athletes are at school to get an education. The percentage of college athletes that go pro is so slim, so it is important for them to take school seriously so they can obtain quality education for their respective futures. The grossly expensive cost of a four year college can get up to 200,000 plus dollars for some schools, and getting a full ride already presents a major financial advantage for athletes. At the same time, there is no doubt that playing a college sport puts an enormous amount of pressure on the student-athletes, both on the playing field and in the classroom. I do think that for the commitment that they give to the school and the amount of revenue that they generate for the school through sports is so substantial that they do deserve some financial compensation, however I do not see it being logistically possible any time in the near future as it brings up the questions which athletes should be paid and how much.

This cartoon shows how the great majority of the reason for all the revenue generated by schools through sports are the athletes themselves, and supports the viewpoint that they should be paid.

This comic depicts that college athletes already have a full ride and special treatment, and supports the viewpoint that they should not be paid.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2014/01/30/21-reasons-why-student-athletes-are-employees-and-should-be-allowed-to-unionize/#3fc82fee2991

Photo Sources:

http://baylorlariat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/NCAAprivlagesComic.jpg.jpeg

http://www.chocolatecoveredlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/NCAA-athletes-2.jpg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's no secret. Colleges and universities generate hundreds of millions of dollars off of their sports programs, namely from football and basketball. However, the student-athletes themselves do not see any of that money. The debate has never been greater: should college athletes get paid?

# data[].attributes.body
It was published on March 29 of 2017 hasn't been published ever since then. It agrees with my topic saying how they don't earn money and how they will in 2024. The author is Malcom Lemmons and the site is Nuffpost.com.There weren't any grammar or spelling errors. It informs you that college athletes should be paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During this year's NCAA tournament, there has been obvious speculation about college athletes and the significant amount of revenue they have been bringing to their schools and the NCAA. This isn't something new. This is something that has been a growing issue in recent years. Not just a regular issue at that, but a structurally racial issue on many levels. African Americans make up the majority of college athletes at the top levels in three major sports: men's and women's basketball (Division I) and the upper FBS level of the NCAA's Division I, according to Travis Walton's HuffPost article "Black Americans Support Paying College Athletes. White People? Not So Much." These also happen to be the highest revenue-generating sports in college athletics.

Race isn't the only issue, but statistically it plays a huge part in the reason why many people oppose the fact that college athletes should be getting paid. According to the same article, "A majority ― 52% ― of black respondents are strongly or somewhat in favor of paying college athletes, while only 15% strongly or somewhat oppose the idea. Among whites, however, the numbers flip: Just 27% support paying those athletes, while 43% oppose it."

If a majority of these college athletes, who are bringing in staggering amounts of money to these schools were white, would this even be a conversation?

Ed O'Bannon, a former professional basketball player, won a lawsuit in 2014 where the NCAA was ordered to pay $44.4 million in attorneys' fees and another $1.5 million in costs to lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Ed O'Bannon class-action antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA.

former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon Jr. sits in his office in Henderson, Nevada. (AP Photo/Isaac Brekken)

O'Bannon and 19 others sued the NCAA, claiming the organization violated United States antitrust laws by not allowing athletes to get a share of the revenues generated from the use of their images in broadcasts and video games. Many former collegiate players were compensated, but some felt it was inadequate and they were owed more.

In 2014, Shabazz Napier was quoted:

"We do have hungry nights that we don't have enough money to get food in. Sometimes money is needed. I don't think you should stretch it out to hundreds of thousands of dollars for playing, because a lot of times guys don't know how to handle themselves with money. I feel like a student athlete. Sometimes, there's hungry nights where I'm not able to eat, but I still gotta play up to my capabilities."

All of this begs the question, that if the NCAA did choose to pay college athletes, what would be the advantages or disadvantages of doing so? Below are a few potential pros and cons of paying college athletes.

Pros

1. Support their families ― Players would be able to actually afford a decent meal and possibly send some money back home. Many of these athletes come from urban, low-class families and often leave school early because of the unimaginable pressure to be the main provider for their family at a young age.

2. Players may stay longer ― To back up the last point, players wouldn't have to leave school early and would still be able to pursue an education while taking care of their family back home. This would possibly increase graduation rates, allow fans to see their favorite players mature through college, and ensure coaches are preparing athletes as much as possible for the next level.

3. Limits corruption from external influences ― Compensating athletes in college will limit the corruption involving agents, boosters and others. Over the years we have seen and heard scandals involving players taking money and even point-shaving. Wouldn't paying them eliminate a lot of these issues?

4. Giving them what they deserve right? ― In Business Insider last week, there was an article that stated, "It is estimated that the University of Louisville has the most valuable players at $1.72 million per year based on the program's $45.6 million in annual revenue. Overall, the average Division I player is worth $170,098 per year with the 351 Division I basketball programs taking in more than 4.5 million in revenue on average each year." These athletes are bringing in incredible amounts of revenue to these schools ― why aren't they receiving what is due? I mean the bottom line is, isn't this what they deserve for their labor?

Cons

1. Financial irresponsibility ― Amateur players receiving compensation just seems like a complete disaster. They don't know how to manage their money, and there wouldn't be anyone their to guide their financial decisions. Colin Cowherd states, "I don't think paying all college athletes is great; not every college is loaded, and most 19-year-olds (are) gonna spend it-and let's be honest, they're gonna spend it on weed and kicks!"

2. Unfair compensation between players ― How will players be compensated? Will each player receive the same amount? What about the top level talent? Should they receive more because they were All-Americans? In theory, wouldn't it bring problems between players, due to one teammate potentially receiving more money?

3. Athletes may never go to class ― Let's face it, if they give these kids money, they'll never have any incentive to go to class. Many of them don't want to go already, combined with the fact that some may be receiving grades without doing any work. Money will only add to this fact.

4. Removes athletes competitive nature and passion for the game ― Players will take on a "pro mindset" where the only motive is money. They will lose that hunger and passion that we see in college. It will be traded for lackadaisical plays and half-ass efforts that we sometime see from pros.

As always, there are two sides to any argument. Even as a former college athlete, I am at a point in my life where I can understand each side. But I do find it interesting as to why so many are widely opposed to this idea. Is it racial? Is it because it's unnecessary? Is it unfair?

Whatever it may be, it looks like this growing debate won't be dying down anytime soon.

Related

Legal Issues Basketball March Madness Division I

Athlete, Author & Entrepreneur

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College Athletes Getting Paid? Here Are Some Pros And Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During this year's NCAA tournament, there has been obvious speculation about college athletes and the significant amount of revenue they have been bringing to their schools and the NCAA. This isn't something new. This is something that has been a growing issue in recent years.

# data[].attributes.body
It was published on February 26 of 2019 it agrees with my topic saying " College athletes put their bodies on the line every game." Most athletes could go straight to the draft instead of going to college knowing they won't get paid.  The author is Tiffany Patterson, the site is  smartasset.com. There weren't any grammar or spelling errors. It informs you that college athletes should be paid.

# 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
It was published on July 18 of 2011 other articles were published on January of 2020. It agrees with my claim the " college athletes should be paid. Study's show that D1 sports bring in billions a years just off of football and basketball but college athlete never touch any of the money. The author is Michael Wilbun the site is Espn.com. There weren't any grammar or spelling errors. It informs you that college athletes should be paid because they deserve too

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ESPN - Serving Sports Fans. Anytime. Anywhere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Visit ESPN for live scores, highlights and sports news. Stream exclusive games on ESPN+ and play fantasy sports.

# data[].attributes.body
It was published in 2020 hasn't been revised ever since. It disagree with my topic saying "It would eliminate the line between amateur and professional sports."  I don't agree with the claim because colleges get paid millions even billions and the next big athlete can't touch a dime of money. Athletes work hard on a daily basis to become better a shows it every game but NCAA doesn't give them  money.The author is Natalie Regoli, the site is Vittana.Org. The weren't any grammar or spelling errors.  It persuades you to think that athletes should get paid.

# data[].attributes.body
It was published in June of 2015 hasn't been published ever since. It agrees with my topic saying "Football and basketball bring in the most money." Study's show that basketball and football bring in the millions of dollars at most a billion dollars a year. The author is Michael Wilbun the site is Espn.com. There weren't any grammar or spelling errors. It informs you that college athletes should be paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ESPN - Serving Sports Fans. Anytime. Anywhere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Visit ESPN for live scores, highlights and sports news. Stream exclusive games on ESPN+ and play fantasy sports.

# data[].attributes.body
It was published in june of 2015 its been revised last years 2019. It agrees with my claim that College Athlete get paid because of their name. The author isn't indicated, the site is The Perspect.Edu. There were no spelling or grammar errors in the article. It informs you that player like Zion Willamson should of got paid of from his name and how he impacted college basketball forever.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CBS Sports and Turner paid over $1 billion a yearfor broadcasting the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament up until 2023. Until now, the broadcasts' college sports stars themselves had no chance of receiving much of that sum (at least not directly). However, the NCAA recently decided to allow college athletes to financially benefit from the use of their names, images and likeness. This decision follows the move byseveral states, led by California, to pass laws allowing the same right, which has been part of a longtime debate about whether college athletes should be paid or not. The question arises primarily regarding football and basketball student-athletes, since they bring in most of the money.

Here are three arguments for and three arguments against paying college athletes:
The difficulty to implement is no excuse
An important argument coming from those who oppose paying college athletes is the expected difficulty involved with implementing such a move. The following are just some of the questions that pinpoint the complexities: Who will pay the college athletes (the NCAA or colleges)? How often will they receive pay? Will there be a salary cap? The main question regards the equitable application of paying college athletes, namely who will get paid and who won't. The details of the new NCAA rules are still being discussed, and will need input from different state legislators and sports associations.

However, since the debate was first sparked over the NCAA's income from broadcasting, the answer seems simple: Theoretically, the athletes to get paid should the ones playing the sports that bring in the big money, namely, men's college basketball and football players. College basketball and football players in particular are the ones who provide a good time for fans who are willing to pay to watch the games, so they deserve to get paid. This is capitalism, and this is how it works in America. In its ruling, the NCAA has distinguished between amateur athletes and potential professional athletes, i.e., those most likely to be recruited by professional teams. Time will tell who ultimately benefits from this decision.
Athletes risk their body and are exposed to permanent damage
One of the best aspects of college sports is the players' enthusiasm. Their love and passion for their respective game is admirable and infectious. But, there is a downside to it; in their fervor to play their best, many college athletes suffer serious injuries that sometimes prematurely end their career.

Setting aside the disturbing fact that a career-ending injury will stop their scholarship, those college athletes put their bodies at risk of permanent damage, without being paid. Hurting your knee might leave you limping for the rest of your life. Suffering concussions can cause dementia and depression, not to mention CTE. Those college athletes who put their bodies on the line for each training session and game they play deserve to be paid for the health risks they are taking.
There's big money involved in college sports anyway
It`s common to think paying college athletes can detract from the purity of the game and ruin that magic. But it won`t. The passion fans see on the court or field is attributed to the fact that there is no money involved.

However, that's not exactly accurate. Big companies are profiting off of branding college athletes, namely, asking them to wear brand apparel during games without paying them to do so. As such, these players feel used. And rightly so. The new rule allowing them to get paid shows that the NCAA and fans are really concerned about preserving the purity of college sports.

Three Reasons Why College Athletes Should Not Get Paid
The difference for college athletes is marginal in term of money
If salaries were to replace scholarships in college sports, athletes would not earn much more. In fact, an impressive $100,000-a-year salary for a college athlete would grant him only a few hundred dollars more per year than a scholarship. According to Money.com, a full athletic scholarship at an NCAA Division I university is about $65,000 a year. This includes tuition, room, board, and books (if you enroll at a college with high tuition). In contrast, a salary will be subjected to federal and state income taxes. Therefore, out of the $100,000, a net of $65,100 will remain for the student. The difference is marginal.
Earning big money too soon can be harmful
People argue that paying collage athletes will help create a sense of financial awareness for them. However, in reality, poor investments, trusting unethical financial advisors and lavish spending habits are some of the main reasons professional athletes find themselves broke after they retire, according to ESPN documentary, "Broke." Without sound financial education, young college athletes may not be equipped to handle so much money.
Paying big money for college students miss the purpose of college
College is about preparing oneself for real life. It is supposed to provide students with tools and abilities to succeed after college. In that manner, college athletes are no different than other college students who practice or intenr in hospitals, law firms or advertising agencies for little to no money. So why should athletes be get paid while the others don't?

A lot of young adults today are impatient and lack the ability to delay gratification. College can teach them a great life lesson: in real life, you have to work hard and wait for your chance. Paying big money to any college student, athlete or academic is far from being the ideal preparation for life.

The Bottom Line: Paying big money to college athletes defeats the purpose of college as a preparatory lesson for life, especially when the monetary difference between a salary and a scholarship is marginal. On the other hand, not paying athletes who risk serious long-term injuries is morally wrong. Was the NCAA right to change the current practice?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CBS Sports and Turner paid over $1 billion a year for broadcasting the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament up until 2023. Until now, the broadcasts' college sports stars themselves had no chance of receiving much of that sum (at least not directly).