# data[].attributes.headline
Colleges annual profits are around $6.1 billion dollars, thanks to the athletes laying it all on the line every game.— Pay College Athletes (@Pay_Athletes) February 2, 2014 

# data[].attributes.subject
Colleges annual profits are around $6.1 billion dollars, thanks to the athletes laying it all on the line every game.— Pay College Athletes (@Pay_Athletes) February 2, 2014 

# data[].attributes.headline
With all athlete go through and help with, shouldn't they get paid? #PayForPlay pic.twitter.com/6UkdrkX3um— Pay College Athletes (@AthleteEmployee) April 17, 2014 

# data[].attributes.subject
With all athlete go through and help with, shouldn't they get paid? #PayForPlay pic.twitter.com/6UkdrkX3um— Pay College Athletes (@AthleteEmployee) April 17, 2014 

# data[].attributes.body
<blockquoteclass="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Since 1988 there have been about 12,500 injuries every year in college athletics, some of which are career-ending.</p>&mdash; Pay College Athletes (@Pay_Athletes) <a href="https://twitter.com/Pay_Athletes/status/429860136874553345">February 2, 2014</a></blockquote> <script asyncsrc="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

# data[].attributes.body
<blockquoteclass="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The NCAA makes about $95 million off of players&#39; jerseys and ticket sales, but athletes get none of the cut.</p>&mdash; Pay College Athletes (@Pay_Athletes) <a href="https://twitter.com/Pay_Athletes/status/429855241048039425">February 2, 2014</a></blockquote> <script asyncsrc="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

# data[].attributes.headline
Athlete put in the time and effort for their education, yet their long hours take away from their education. pic.twitter.com/7tghH0I5H4— Pay College Athletes (@AthleteEmployee) April 17, 2014 

# data[].attributes.subject
Athlete put in the time and effort for their education, yet their long hours take away from their education. pic.twitter.com/7tghH0I5H4— Pay College Athletes (@AthleteEmployee) April 17, 2014 

# data[].attributes.body
Most athletic programs can't afford to pay athletes on their own, so the NCAA and their executives need to figure out a way to start compensating their golden geese. Athletes earn their schools hundreds of thousands of dollars, increase enrollment, and if they do well, provide a recruiting piece for generations.

# data[].attributes.body
Being a college athlete takes a lot of time, work, and dedication. According to an article Jake New on the insidehighered website “Most college athletes say they spend as much or more time on sports during the off-season as they do during the season, leaving them little time for common college student activities like studying, internships and part-time jobs”. I believe college athletes should be paid because, college athletes are working a full-time job plus overtime. Most athletes are injured before they even make it to the professionals. Graduating with a college degree doesn’t guarantee them an income after college. Lastly, it would give them extra money to pay for expenses that their scholarship doesn’t cover.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A second concern is that universities cannot afford to pay the players. A leader of this school of thought is Andrew Zimbalist, the prominent Smith College sports economist (and an old friend of mine), who likes to point out that fewer than two dozen of the 350 Division I athletic departments make money.

Offended by the multimillion-dollar salaries of college coaches, Zimbalist has proposed that the N.C.A.A. receive a limited antitrust exemption from Congress, the purpose of which would be to cap the compensation of coaches and athletic directors. (He has also called for players to receive more benefits, like health insurance, and to reap outside income from their image and likeness.)

Finally, there are the courts, which are also fighting over how much to pay athletes. When Judge Claudia Wilken decided the O'Bannon case in 2014, she ruled that the N.C.A.A. was in violation of antitrust laws and that players should receive money to bridge the full "cost of attendance" at college. (Under pressure from the so-called Power 5 conferences, the N.C.A.A. agreed to this a few months later.) She also said athletes should receive an additional $5,000, to be held in trust until they left school.

An appeals court agreed with her about the cost of attendance but struck down the extra $5,000. There is now a new case before Judge Wilken, of the United States District Court in Northern California, that, if the plaintiffs win, will get the N.C.A.A. out of the compensation-setting business and allow the conferences to set their own rules for it.

Which brings me back to my salary-cap idea. As I've followed the growing debate over paying players, I've been surprised that no one else has gone down this path.

My salary-cap idea would not break the bank, as one side fears, but it does not completely abandon free-market principles either. Mainly, it is a practical approach, and I think that as such it's worth another look.

Here's how it would work:

Every Division I men's basketball and football team would have a salary cap, just as the pros do - except the amounts would be vastly lower. In basketball, the cap would be $650,000. In football, it would be $3 million. It is ludicrous to argue that the Power 5 programs cannot afford this; the combined $3.65 million is barely half the $7 million that Michigan Coach Jim Harbaugh made this season. (I would also drop the number of scholarships in college football to 60, which is closer to the size of an N.F.L. team, from 85 in the top tier.)

Second, I would impose a minimum salary: $25,000 per player in each sport. This would obviously not make the athletes rich, but it would give them enough to live like typical college students.

Now to the free-market aspect: The minimum salaries consume only half the cap. The rest of the money would be used as a recruiting tool, so that a star player could be offered additional money as an inducement to go to a particular university. One university might want to offer a star halfback $40,000, while another might offer him $60,000. The player would make a choice based not on a recruiter's sweet-talking promises - or not solely on that - but on cold, hard cash.

I can see you recoiling at this notion. But let me ask: Is offering cash compensation really that much worse than the current system, in which universities build lavish facilities and spend absurd sums on their "programs" to lure good players? Doesn't it make more sense to give some of that money to the players? It would actually be less expensive.

It would also have other benefits. Universities could hit up boosters to put money into a fund - tax-deductible under current law - to pay the players' salaries. That would diminish their incentive to sneak money and benefits to athletes under the table.

And the contracts between players and universities - yes, contracts, just as in any other important economic transaction - could go well beyond compensation.

They could require a player to spend, say, three years in college, reducing reliance on one-and-dones. The players and their parents might insist on certain academic benefits or the right to pursue a particular major. (My system would also necessitate agents to advise athletes. This is a good thing, not a bad one.)

And to those who say that paying some players more than others would create dissension on a college team, I would reply that huge salary disparities are a fact of life in the pros, and they seem to manage somehow.

(Although I did not think of this when I wrote my original article, it seems clear to me now that college sports should also adopt the Olympic model, so that athletes in any sport, not just football and men's basketball, could endorse products and be paid for their autographs and the right to use their image. That seems like a pretty basic right.)

Salary caps, of course, violate antitrust law - unless they are negotiated at arm's length by an organization representing the athletes. That is why pro basketball, hockey and football depend on players' unions: If the unions disappear, so do the salary caps.

For college athletes, such an organization already exists: It is called the National College Players Association, headed by Ramogi Huma, the longtime activist who was the driving force behind the effort to unionize Northwestern's football players. As an advocacy group, the N.C.P.A. lacks power; under my approach, it would be given the power to collectively negotiate on behalf of college athletes.

The N.C.P.A. would negotiate with the N.C.A.A. and the Power 5 over the salary cap and minimum salaries, which would probably increase over time. It would also have a seat at the table when the conferences and the N.C.A.A. negotiate with the networks over television rights. The players would get a certain percentage of all TV and marketing revenues - I'm thinking 10 percent at first, though that, too, would probably rise - which would be held in a fund by the N.C.P.A. and disbursed to a player after he left school. How much the player would get would depend on how often his team played on television, and under which TV contract.

Yes, that sounds complicated, but it's really not that different from the way music royalties are distributed.

This same fund would pay for lifetime health insurance for football and men's basketball players. Former college athletes would be assured health insurance no matter what, relieving the universities of what ought to be their moral responsibility. The N.C.P.A. could also vet agents - as the pro unions do - and, for pro prospects, offer insurance against career-ending injury.

My plan has one other element. Although college eligibility would remain at the current four years, the scholarships themselves would give players eight years to complete a degree. (My original article suggested six years, but I now think eight years makes more sense.) Playing football or men's basketball is a full-time job and then some. The appeal of college athletics, in no small part, is that the players are students at the universities, so they would still have to take classes. But their loads should be reduced during their years of eligibility, and once their playing days are over, they should be able to finish their education free. That's only fair.

What's more, a huge percentage of athletes, including bench warmers, are convinced that they are bound for professional glory. Many athletes do not bother with their studies because they think they will get rich once they enter the pros. By the time they realize that's not going to happen, it's too late. My plan would make it possible for them to return to college and get the education that would allow them to find another path to a successful life.

Is my plan perfect? Of course not. The most obvious problem is whether my scheme violates Title IX by carving out football and men's basketball players for special treatment. My belief is that athletes in the revenue sports play a different role on campus than other athletes: Many of them have been admitted to the university, after all, because they will generate revenue through their play. But I also realize that this is a point that would most likely have to be litigated.

There is also the question of what smaller colleges will do. Four years ago, I thought that the increasing cost of big-time college sports would cause smaller schools to reconsider the role of football, an expensive sport to put on. I thought they might decide to de-emphasize sports, perhaps forming a subset of Division I that did not view itself as in competition with the Power 5 conferences.

But I've been proved wrong about this. After the cost-of-attendance payments were approved, the non-Power 5 universities were nearly unanimous in vowing to find ways to pay them to their athletes despite the strain on their athletic budgets. Now my best guess is that if a salary cap were put in place, the non-Power 5 universities would find ways to pay for salaries as well. I don't think that's the best outcome, but it is outweighed by the net good that would result from a salary cap.

That's my idea for paying college athletes. If you've got a better one, I'd love to hear it. We can argue about it on Twitter - I'm @NoceraNYT.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A second concern is that universities cannot afford to pay the players. A leader of this school of thought is Andrew Zimbalist, the prominent Smith College sports economist (and an old friend of mine), who likes to point out that fewer than two dozen of the 350 Division I athletic departments make money.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NCAA critics want Mark Emmert to start a real discussion on how to pay student-athletes. (USATSI)

More from Solomon: EA Sports wanted to pay players
When the Ed O'Bannon trial starts June 9, the plaintiffs will seek an end to NCAA rules preventing football and men's basketball players from getting paid for commercial use of their names, images and likenesses. It's a fundamental principle the NCAA has clung to throughout its history, and the body doesn't appear willing to compromise on that point.

NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy said NCAA members "right now" believe paying a college athlete or allowing a player to receive compensation based on name, image and likeness would erode the collegiate model.

"I don't know that it's my call or that I would be able to conceive of a particular circumstance where a student-athlete would receive compensation for name, image and likeness," Remy said. "I do know the membership has consistently found it to be something that would ruin the collegiate model and create problems in the recruiting context and competitive fairness model."

But say the NCAA and its schools lost the O'Bannon case and the inevitable subsequent appeals, or lost the Jeffrey Kessler lawsuit that essentially seeks a free market for athletes when they're receiving scholarships. What might "pay-for-play" -- the ubiquitous term often used without explaining what it means -- actually look like?

CBSSports.com broached that question with four people who are critics of the college sports system. The overriding question to Ken Feinberg, Jeffrey Kessler, Ramogi Huma and Jay Bilas: What models could work to compensate college athletes beyond their scholarship?

Three years ago, Feinberg attached his name to the O'Bannon lawsuit pro bono. He's a board member of the Former College Athletes Association, which is the mechanism in which licensing revenue would be collected for former athletes if O'Bannon prevails or settles.

Feinberg cautioned that it's very premature to say exactly what the formula would be for distributing money without knowing the amount and source of the available funds. But there is a theory in place. Feinberg said former athletes in all sports -- not current athletes -- would be eligible to receive individual compensation if they voluntarily join the FCAA.

"It could be former athletes who appeared on television," Feinberg said. "It could be former athletes the NCAA secured for video games, T-shirts, emblems on automobile stickers or any item. It could be any and all revenue sources that benefit the NCAA. The FCAA is not looking to get revenue from TV outlets. It includes only those funds that end up in the NCAA's bank account."

Feinberg said the FCAA has "absolutely nothing to do" with the attempt to unionize college athletes. However, it's worth noting that Huma heads up the Northwestern football player union efforts and is a board member of the FCAA.

If the FCAA became a reality, the money would be distributed by Nashville-based SESAC, one of the nation's largest performers-rights companies. SESAC would also be in charge of registering the athletes. The amount of money distributed to athletes would be based on formulas created by the FCAA.

How would the difference in payouts be determined between a football player and a field hockey player, or the payouts even between two football teams? That would fall in large part to Feinberg, a renowned mediator who distributed funds to families of 9/11 victims. The revenue dollars generated by a sport or school would result in more money for a player.

"I would think a former football player at Michigan or Southern California is probably entitled to more funds than a former football player at Harvard or Yale," Feinberg said. "But I don't think it's feasible or wise to allocate different funds among football players at a particular team. I don't think Johnny Manziel, when he graduates, should receive more money than his teammates because he helped Texas A&M appear on TV seven times. Football is a team game. Now, if Texas A&M is selling his shirt that says Manziel, that's different."

Kessler, who helped bring free agency to the NFL, filed the Martin Jenkins lawsuit on behalf of current and former players in March seeking to dramatically change the system. He wants an injunction to end the NCAA rules limiting the amount of financial aid players can receive, essentially meaning players would be allowed to be paid.

In Kessler's mind, if Ohio State wants to pay X amount of money above a scholarship to a player and Alabama chooses to pay Y, so be it. That's the free market he wants.

"The market would allow the best solution," Kessler said. "If the best solution is to put money in trust funds for the athletes and give it to them when they leave or even increase amounts if they stay and graduate, then that will be the solution. The idea is to let the schools do what they want. We want to free schools to make their own decisions."

Under this scenario, athletes would almost certainly have to pay taxes.

"That's OK," Kessler said. "Everybody else pays taxes if they get compensated. The IRS doesn't treat scholarships as income. I don't think that would change no matter what happens in the case. If they're given different economic benefits, then the IRS may tax them. That's fair."

Kessler, who recently started a college sports law practice, said he sued the NCAA and only the five major conferences -- not the rest of the Football Bowl Subdivision -- "because that is where the most amount of money is."

The NCAA and the five major conferences haven't responded yet to Kessler's suit. "We anticipate they'll make the same arguments they always make, that they're entitled to have these rules to preserve the purity of amateurism and also make some arguments about competitive balance," Kessler said. "I think what's happened is the money's gotten so big (in college sports) that all pretenses of the amateurism argument have completely faded away."

Ramogi Huma, players union organizer

Huma, a former UCLA football player, has been pushing to get more benefits and rights to athletes for more than a decade. He took it to another level this year by leading the efforts of Northwestern football players to be declared employees by a regional director of the National Labor Relations Board. (Northwestern is appealing the ruling.)

"The NCAA's catch word 'pay for play' is a powerful phrase that can make people flinch," Huma said. "But to thoroughly discuss this issue, people have to understand players are already paid to play right now -- compensation from a scholarship. The question is should additional revenue get directed to them? We've never advocated professional salaries."

Huma wants the so-called Olympic model -- that is, college athletes would receive money based on individual deals, such as endorsements or autograph signings. This model would allow athletes to receive whatever the outside market bears benefit while the NCAA would keep its broadcasting and licensing revenue without having to pay players.

"We're open to ideas that much of those funds could be put into a trust fund for later," Huma said. "We're not necessarily saying if Johnny Manziel did a commercial he would have to receive all of the money right then and there. Maybe more money goes into a trust fund to incentivize graduation or retention. It would be a win-win. The guys who are leaving early have the best opportunity to generate revenue."

Huma acknowledged there are questions about the Olympic model, such as whether rogue boosters would set up fake endorsement spots to funnel money to players.

"Have a clearinghouse to establish which companies are able to be eligible for those types of commercial opportunities, whether it's charities or companies for autograph signings," Huma said. "Start with corporate sponsors of the NCAA and schools. Obviously, they're trusted sponsors or the schools wouldn't be dealing with them. That would provide a lot of opportunities for the athletes right from the jump."

Very few people are more critical of the NCAA than Bilas, a lawyer by trade. He doesn't expect the compensation model to significantly change unless there are court victories in the O'Bannon and/or Kessler cases.

"I think any change is going to be forced upon the system," Bilas said. "Those in charge have a different view of things. I believe they're trying to protect their paychecks, and I don't blame them. Maybe if I were them I'd do the same thing. This is a little bit scary for some people. One of the ways people have to look at this is if we have to pay players, you can't spend as much on facilities and can't have gigantic athletic departments with a waste of money."

Bilas would allow athletes to be compensated through the Olympic model and by getting paid by schools, if the universities elect to do so.

"Allow institutions to do what they want just as we do in every other area as far as compensation," Bilas said. "Right now my daughter is an artist and sells her work. There's no restriction on selling her work as a college student. They're not saying, 'You dirty professional artist, you're not allowed to be here.' We're not saying it's unfair because Duke can afford to pay more than Elon for a coach. People understand that. If you don't want to pay, it doesn't mean you can't be competitive."

If payments were allowed, Bilas envisions players would receive non-compete deals with schools and endorsement companies. For instance, Jabari Parker might sign an exclusive three-year deal with Duke, and Manziel might have an exclusive endorsement deal with Topps in addition to his deal with Texas A&M.

"ADs will tell you unapologetically that the athletes aren't even worth the scholarship we're giving them and what would they be worth in the D-League or overseas?" Bilas said. "OK, if they're not worth anything, why restrict them? In the same breath they'll say if we open it up, we'll have bidding wars. Well, why open it up if they're not worth anything? When coaches and schools are available on the market, they don't call it a bidding war. It's called a business. You give money to a player, boy, now it's a bidding war."

Bilas believes a perception of college athletes is that since only a small number of them play professionally they shouldn't ask more beyond a scholarship.

"If it's such a small percentage, why are we pouring all of this time and money into it?" he said. "Well, they'll say it's an integral part of the educational process. OK, then why don't athletes get any credit for what they're doing? It's looked upon by school and academicians as a contagion that's drifting away from the universities. All I've been saying is let's call this what it is: professional sports. If some people don't want to pay, then don't."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCAA critics offer ways to pay college players

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More from Solomon: EA Sports wanted to pay players When the Ed O'Bannon trial starts June 9, the plaintiffs will seek an end to NCAA rules preventing football and men's basketball players from getting paid for commercial use of their names, images and likenesses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Former Ohio State quarterback Cardale Jones is getting ready to begin his NFL career, as he's expected to be selected during the NFL Draft this spring, but before he starts collecting checks, Cardale did what he's been known to do for years: tweet for free.

Jones sent out a series of tweets on Monday calling out the NCAA for the way it handles student-athletes.

I'm so happy to be done with the @NCAA and their rules & regulation. They do any & everything to exploited collegiate athletes.
- Cardale Jones (@CJ12_) April 11, 2016

It's deeper than athletes thinking we should get paid. The @NCAA control our lives with insane and unfair rules.
- Cardale Jones (@CJ12_) April 11, 2016

Why shouldn't a collegiate athlete be able to use their OWN likeness/brand to benefit themselves but yet the @NCAA can sell there jerseys
- Cardale Jones (@CJ12_) April 11, 2016

He ain't come here to play intern!

Jones is hardly the first person to question the NCAA's rules and regulations. That's been going on since the dawn of the NCAA, particularly with how lucrative television deals have become in the last few decades. Schools and conferences pull in millions upon millions of dollars, while the players get paid the same thing players did in the early twentieth century.

To its credit, the NCAA has at least tried to modernize in recent years, but it's still 50 to 60 years behind common sense.

Cardale Jones won't miss NCAA rules. (USATSI)

Tom Fornelli has been a college football writer at CBS Sports since 2010. During his time at CBS, Tom has proven time and again that he hates your favorite team and thinks your rival is a paragon of football... Full Bio

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LOOK: Cardale Jones rants on Twitter about problems with NCAA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Former Ohio State quarterback Cardale Jones is getting ready to begin his NFL career, as he's expected to be selected during the NFL Draft this spring, but before he starts collecting checks, Cardale did what he's been known to do for years: tweet for free.

# data[].attributes.headline
1. How will the NCAA determine how much athletes will get paid?

# data[].attributes.subject
1. How will the NCAA determine how much athletes will get paid?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Be Paid
When the NCAA was founded by President Roosevelt in 1905, the institution was committed to the idea of not providing a salary or stipend to the student-athletes who took part in its organization. It is based on the idea of amateurism, and this was a notable idea at the time.

But, over a century later, the NCAA is no longer recognizable compared to what the organization used to be. The NCAA has modernized to take full advantage of the new kinds of sports fans and especially the new kinds of media. Today, sports and athletics in the NCAA draw in around $11 billion every year for the organization. Its coaches and administrators make staggering amounts of money. From high salaries to performance bonuses, it seems that the NCAA is a very profitable business considering it is a non-profit organization.

Yet, despite all of this cash floating around, the players who make the organization work do not see any of this money. In fact, they are barred by NCAA regulations from capitalizing on their status as great athletes at all. The organization argues that student athletes are provided with full scholarships and a free education. While this was previously a great incentive to work towards a career as a college athlete, the billions of dollars that are poured into the industry every year seem to be disappearing into black holes including ever-increasing coaches' salaries and brand new stadiums.

Now, collegiate sports teams are fighting back against the NCAA standards. Whether in the press room or in the court room, the NCAA cannot seem to come up with a valid argument other than, "This is our tradition."

In the 21 st century, the NCAA tradition no longest exists. Here are the top ten reasons why student athletes should be paid for their hard work and talent.

BluIz60 / Shutterstock.com

Colleges can be more selective in their admittance procedures when their sports teams are famous or successful. Many of these universities fall far from the top 10 colleges in the world or even the country. Yet, they are able to run admissions procedures and charge tuition rates that reflect those of Ivy League institutions.

The year that Boston College's quarterback won the Heisman Trophy, the number of students vying for admission to the college grew by 25 points in a single year. It was not just the number of applications that grew- the quality of applications grew in similar proportions. The average SAT score of the freshman admitted in that year jumped by 110 points. Doug Flutie, a single student athlete, created this huge raise in interest with his talent and passion for the game and it seems that only Boston College was rewarded.

College sports teams often do much of the school's marketing for them while simultaneously generating revenue. Relatively small and unknown schools like Gonzaga University in Washington are known almost entirely because of their basketball teams. Without these successful players, colleges like Gonzaga would have to spend a fortune on marketing programs to attract out-of-state students.

Photo Works / Shutterstock.com

If athletes were to be paid for only one reason, it is because the NCAA and universities capitalize on both the team's success and the players' status for its own financial gain through the sales of apparel and other merchandise. When universities sell jerseys and t-shirts with popular numbers on them, they are literally selling the personhood of the person whose number is on the jersey.

The sales of apparel featuring student athlete personalities takes the NCAAs profits from sports to a whole new level. Say what they will about the fairness of the scholarship system, public businesses that used the image of an athlete, model, actress or any public figure for their own gain would ultimately end up compensating the individual they use.

Not only is the university allowed to capitalize on the celebrity of its players; but the players are contractually not allowed to do this themselves. NCAA rules state that student athletes are not allowed to use their likeness for promotional purposes or monetary gain. This means that a well-known athlete cannot charge money for the hours spent signing autographs but the university is able to use the athlete to generate hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars through sales and increased enrollment.

Making millions of dollars based on a player's performance or personality while barring them from accepting even a free taco is not only hypocritical, it is morally questionable.

NCAA coaches can often earn an average of $100,000 per year. Being that they work for educational institutions and often have several assistants and advisors who help to share the work load, this is a huge amount of money compared to teachers and professors who are inundated with facilitating the academic success of tens of thousands of students.

A $100,000 salary is fair for professionals who draw so much money into the school through the leadership of their sports teams. However, schools with massive sports programs have been known to pay their head coaches millions of dollars. The head football coach at Alabama is reported to have made $5.5 million in the year 2013 and recently received a new contract to the tune of $7 million each year. The head football coach at Texas made slightly less; he brought in only $5.4 million.

Today, it is strange to think that when the NCAA was founded, most people were equally opposed to paying coaches as well as athletes. Many coaches worked primarily for the love of the game. Over 100 years later, the average BCS eligible football coach makes a salary of $2.05 million every year.

If schools believe that spending $7 million a year on a single salary is a good investment, it is difficult to reconcile the schools' and the NCAA's stance on compensation for players. After all, money does not seem to be an issue.

The NCAA has revenue that rivals many of the country's biggest public companies. It is never compared to these companies because the NCAA remains a non-profit organization. However, each year the NCAA takes in almost $11 billion in revenue across college sports. The biggest earners are football, basketball and baseball.

$11 billion is more than the annual revenue of the entire NBA or the NHL. It should also be noted that this money is not evenly distributed. The top playing Division I schools contribute more to this figure than many of the lowest members combined.

For example, the University of Alabama took in $143.3 million in athletic revenues alone. This figure is not only more than any professional hockey team in the NHL earns but it is also more than 25 out of the 30 NBA teams bring in annually as well.

While there is nothing wrong with a non-profit organization taking on huge amounts of revenue, it seems that the wealth could be distributed amongst those who are at the heart and soul of the organization: the players.

Although the NCAA pays its top executives million dollar salaries, parents, students and fans do not scramble to snap up the best season tickets to watch some executives play sports. The fans are invested in the players, many of whom have started taking on followings akin to those of famous and established professional players.

If the administrators and coaches in the NCAA want to make the same salaries that their colleagues in the pros do, then perhaps they should also reconsider how committed they truly are to the amateurism that the NCAA was founded on.

Conclusion

Student athletes are stuck between two worlds. While the NCAA constantly affirms its commitment to its root values, it is simultaneously brokering deals with national networks to show live football games to millions of people. Too many college athletes put their heart and soul into what they do and too many come out with any reward.

Many people say that NCAA has an ideal model for creating cheap labor. Not only do they expect athletes to perform in the classroom that performance has to be translated to the field. Should the athlete begin to feel the pressure of the strenuous 90 hour weeks, they are cut from the team and lose their scholarship and their vehicle with which to educate themselves. What the NCAA says when they enforce policies that leave their players floundering both physical and financially is that each player is just a body that is replaceable.

Of course, there is not a real precedent to begin paying a student the same salary as Kobe Bryant; but making sure that they can eat properly should not be an issue for organizations with such huge amounts of revenue. Whether it is to acknowledge their significant contribution to the college or just to ensure that these students leave their college career with something other than a diploma and a "college football injury," student athletes should be compensated. After all, Americans don't spend $11 billion a year to watch men in suits make decisions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Be Paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Be Paid When the NCAA was founded by President Roosevelt in 1905, the institution was committed to the idea of not providing a salary or stipend to the student-athletes who took part in its organization. It is based on the idea of amateurism, and this was a notable idea at the time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Regarding the debate of whether or not college athletes should be paid, Danny Kanell acknowledges that these players are receiving the opportunity of an education and the experiences that go along with it, which is a privilege in itself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should college players be paid? - ESPN Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Regarding the debate of whether or not college athletes should be paid, Danny Kanell acknowledges that these players are receiving the opportunity of an education and the experiences that go along with it, which is a privilege in itself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Common Sense Reasons Why College Athletes Should Be Paid (According to Jay Bilas)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ESPN's Jay Bilas explains in plain language why the NCAA needs to pay their workers.

# data[].attributes.headline
"An Economist Explains Why College Athletes Should be Paid"

# data[].attributes.subject
"An Economist Explains Why College Athletes Should be Paid"

# data[].attributes.body
Breon, I think this was the topic area you had an interest in. If not, its still an interesting read. Dave Zirin is worth paying attention to. He also reposts much of his stuff at his blog: http://edgeofsports.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Thursday I spoke to Andy Schwarz, a leading anti-trust economist, for some straight common sense about about the NCAA, college sports and paying athletes. His words should be CliffsNotes for everyone watching March Madness.

On why NCAA athletes should receive some sort of monetary compensation:

I always say the question of whether they should get paid is the wrong one. I think the question is, "If the NCAA weren't colluding against them, would they get paid?" And the answer is, "Yes, they would." We all should have the right to earn what we're worth, to go in and ask for it, and if we're not worth much, we won't get much. The fact that the NCAA is so adamantly insisting on enforcing a rule to prevent anyone from getting paid I think is a good sign that if the rule weren't there, they would.

On what kind of system would make the most sense:

I think the simplest system is almost no system at all. Or if you insist on having some rules, have them at the conference level.

The best system is one where teams make their own decisions. In college, if you had each of the ten football conferences or thirty-two basketball conferences competing, they could make their own rules. They could set a level of parity among the schools within the conference and then go off and compete for talent in such a way that if a school up in Minnesota or Maine or Massachusetts thinks hockey players are worth something, then they would get paid. In most places, football and basketball players would get paid. I went to Stanford. Women's basketball players would be in demand there. Probably at Connecticut as well.

On whether paying athletes would be either a legal violation of Title IX, or wreck women's sports:

Both of those things are 180 degrees wrong. Title IX is really specific to what it does and doesn't require. People probably think that Title IX requires that men's sports and women's sports get equally funded and it doesn't say that at all. In 2009-10, Alabama spent $43 million on men's sports and $13 million on women's sports, and they weren't in violation of Title IX because all Title IX says with respect to money is that, however many men you have playing sports, the money they get has to be proportional to the ratio. So if you've got 60 percent male and 40 percent female athletes, then the money that they specifically get in scholarships has to be 60:40, plus or minus a tiny margin for error. Now you have a system where the player "pay" is capped and the way that schools compete for talent is to pay coaches more and more to get them to recruit, This shifts money away from areas where Title IX does apply-the money that goes to players-to areas where it doesn't apply. So if we change the system and we allow schools to compete for talent with pay, you'd see coaches' pay go down, you'd see male athletes' pay go up. But every time you increase the male athletes' pay by a dollar, and it's not quite a dollar in matching, but there would need to be, under the law, a matching payment to women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Economist Explains Why College Athletes Should Be Paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Thursday I spoke to Andy Schwarz, a leading anti-trust economist, for some straight common sense about about the NCAA, college sports and paying athletes. His words should be CliffsNotes for everyone watching March Madness. On why NCAA athletes should receive some sort of monetary compensation: I always say the question of whether they should get paid is the wrong one.

# data[].attributes.body
Small things worh Noticing