# data[].attributes.headline
Image                                               Debate on Paying College Athletes.

# data[].attributes.subject
Image                                               Debate on Paying College Athletes.

# data[].attributes.body
The humorous or heated image posted October 31st 2019 by Khyle Mingo. This sight is not revised. This is a cautious site due to the URL .com. Its entertainment because the NCAA is selling the jerseys of the players and they dont get one penny of it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Official site of The Week Magazine, offering commentary and analysis of the day's breaking news and current events as well as arts, entertainment, people and gossip, and political cartoons.

# data[].attributes.headline
Image                                              The Week

# data[].attributes.subject
Image                                              The Week

# data[].attributes.body
This was posted by Rick McKee in 2014 . It agrees with one side of the argument. This a cautious website with .com. Its meant to entertain with some humor. The point all the money goes to coach when the athletes deserve it too maybe even more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the wake of the recent news regarding College athletes and talks about payment for playing many articles have been written discussing either the benefits or consequences of either action. To give a full picture I have researched articles from the past four years to see the progression of thoughts on the matter to form a factual analysis.

In 2015, an article by the name of "Paying College Athletes: A Complicated Issue" was published. it started off by noting that when a person type "paying" in a search engine "paying college athletes", (BobarakiS 2015) this helped show the relevance and how prominent the topic was in 2015. The article then went on to say that many athletes in college don't consider the sport a hobby, but a full-time job. The author, Stephen Borbarakis, pulled a fact from an USA Today article stating, "According to a USA Today poll of over 21,000 DI, DII, and DIII athletes, they typically spend over 30 hours per week on their sport in-season." (BobarakiS 2015) With 30 hours a week spent strictly on athletic type event, that leaves a lowered amount of time for the student-athlete to sleep, eat and do homework. That doesn't even include time for homework or time to have a social life like everything college student should have. The article makes playing a sport in college compare with holding a full-time job, and in the aspect of hours spent for it, the comparison fits.

As of the time this article was written, 2015, and to this date, the form of payment for most college athletes if they are talented enough or on a need-based program are scholarships that provide payments to the student-athletes tuition. The issue that the article discussed was that scholarship compensation isn't an issue at "big name" schools such as: Alabama, Ohio State and Clemson. At smaller universities such as a Coastal Carolina or Valdosta State, the school does not have as large of a scholarship pool to pull from to give aid to student-athletes.

*** The article "Paying College Athletes: A Complicated Issue" did not include the colleges used as examples***

Another issue the article proceeded to stay on track of why student athletes should be compensated in pay for their play, it goes into the fact that other than football, most sports do not generate enough money for students to receive a full or majority based scholarship. Sports like baseball and almost all women's sports don't generate enough money to have more than ten partial scholarships.

A way a student athlete can make money is to make money off their image or likeness, right? "Wrong. Currently, it is a violation of NCAA rules for players to sell their images and likeness to make a profit for themselves." (BobarakiS 2015) That means that, I Khyle Mingo, who is a D1 athlete cannot make money when people buy my number jersey or that I can't sign mini rugby balls and profit when they get sold or auctioned off. The Biggest argument and became a lawsuit later one year prior to this article was posted was the court case under the name of O'Bannon v. NCAA. O'Bannon v. NCAA was a court case was an issue due to a video game called "NCAA (Current year)," the video game NCAA14 sold over 1 million copies at an average of $45.00 a copy. The issue that caused the court case was that the players that were put into the game were not allowed to profit due to NCAA sanctions put in place. The court case played out in the Supreme court and the initial verdict sided with the players and was to award $5,000 per player per year of eligibility. The NCAA appealed it and requested rights to all their televised games to control what would be shown, they lost the appeal but won the appeal to not have to pay players stating, "To preserve the character and quality of the 'product,' athletes must not be paid." (BobarakiS 2015)

The next article I read in depth was one titled, "Paying College Athletes? I Think Not", from the title I could tell it was someone with a negative view on athletes getting paid. The article was written in 2016, one year after the previous article, the article starts out with saying that paying athletes would have a tremendous economic repercussion. The article sourced a source as John Thelin from the Time Magazine stating "the subtle difference between scholarships and salaries. Say a Division I basketball player is given an $100,000 salary instead of a $65,000 scholarship to a private university that includes, room and board, books, and cost of attendance. With a salary all the sudden federal and state taxes are deducted along with social security and depending on the state, payroll tax. These taxes in total amount to around $34,900, leaving $65,100 left of the original salary. That leaves only an extra $100 dollars in the student athlete's pocket after paying for college expenses. Meanwhile, universities would have to fork over an extra $35,000 per student to give an extra $100 of spending power."(Barrand 2016)

Next it talked about all the stuff that athletes already get such as free tutors, scheduled classes that fit without any worry, and all the free athletic gear. These benefits can be because the school does not have to pay a large amount of money to every single student-athlete. Another bonus of not paying student-athlete is that the athletic department can build facilities such as LSU just built a 28 million dollar "locker room". The quotes around locker room are because it's more of a complex, as it contains the locker room with a television in each locker, a food area, a massage room and much more. If a school had to pay every athlete the $5,000 year per player, there would be no growth in the program or facilities.

Another aspect that the article touches on is a system salary, a system salary is in place when a team or company must be paid. The issue that would be ran into is the question of, does each person get paid based on what they solely bring in or do the players pool the money and it be split among everyone? If it is mandated that each player be paid the same the issue of a starting QB getting paid the same amount of the backup long snapped would cause issues in the value of a key player over a backup. On the other hand, a team could have a super star such as a Zion Williamson, who played for Duke and could have brought in millions and had to split it with other players. Lastly, is the in locker room issue of a super star rolling in money because of popularity and another starter not getting much because no one wants his jersey. As complicated as it is the article summed it up with the fact that money would disrupt tea dynamics and would make it an inner-team competition.

The last two articles i gained knowledge from were "The Solution To Paying College Athletes" and "Paying College Athletes". Both articles were fairly short, and covered the same area filling in gaps were each article may have skipped over. One article, "The Solution To Paying College Athletes", focused on a solution to the issue while the other, "Paying College Athletes", focused on the why and noted great examples. "The Solution To Paying College Athletes", added that each major University had an apparel deal and to use that money to pay the athletes. The article, "The Solution To Paying College Athletes", notes that "Institute a rule that part of that sponsorship agreement consists of a cap (for the sake of argument, let's say $100,000 per year) for each athlete who gets a scholarship to the school for athletics. For college basketball, that's around $1.3 million (13 scholarship students). That's a fraction of what some of these apparel deals go for. For college football, it comes out to $8.5 million (85 scholarship students)." (Rb 2017) The article then adds a kicker stating that with the clothing deal, it would cover not only pay the student, but cover the tuition cost and leave money left over to go directly into the student-athletes pocket. "The average tuition is $33K at D1 schools. So that leaves a team with an average tuition with $67K that must go directly to the student and his / her family. Per year." (Rb 2017)

The last article that was used and was mentioned briefly above it, "Paying College Athletes", the article covers the issues of a certain player and what he did for his school/ team and what they didn't do for him. It mentions a player named Shabazz Nappier, a guard for UCONN men's basketball in the 2014 year. He single-handedly brought the basketball team through March Madness and won the school the National Title along with having the highest selling jersey for the month of March and April.

Although Shabazz was doing great things on the court, off the court was a struggle. The article "Paying College Athletes" noted that " his family went to bed starving. One of the biggest fallacies that I see when it comes to athletes is that everything is paid for. Clearly, it is not. While Shabazz was making the UConn program millions of dollars selling merchandise, tickets, and winning games, he went to bed each and every night starving." (Nikitas 2017)

To conclude, after all the facts have been laid out for me, nothing about this issue is simple. There are at least two types of factors that need to be weighed when making the decision to pay or not pay student-athletes.

ethically: Is it fair to not pay players for all their hard work and time they spend attempting to become the best they possibly can be to help the school win games and make money.

Is a scholarship enough compensation for the amount of time they spend on the field rather than off?

Economically: Is it possible to pay every student-athlete that plays for every college and if so how much do they get, who handles the money?

The only payment option I could muster up is that based on the amount of student-athletes that are at a school, there would be a pool of money split between them all and install a bonus program for team that win their conference and or a championship. Along with the program that "The Solution To Paying College Athletes" added where Institute a rule that part of that sponsorship agreement consists of a cap (for the sake of argument, let's say $100,000 per year) for each athlete who gets a scholarship to the school for athletics. For college basketball, that's around $1.3 million (13 scholarship students). That's a fraction of what some of these apparel deals go for. For college football, it comes out to $8.5 million (85 scholarship students)." But do to the amount of schoalrships we could cut the $100,000 down to $50,000.

EX. 1,000 student athletes @(random college)

money pool: $4,317,500+ $50,000/per scholarship

Scholarship by sport:

Football: 85 due to roster size

Basketball: 26 Men+ women

Baseball: 11.7

Soccer: 20 Men+ women

Hockey: 18

Lacrosse: 12

total Average: 172.7

Average Tuition: $25,000

= $4,317,500 + ($50,000 x 172.7)= 12,952,000

- - - - - - - -

1,000 student athletes = $12,952/ athletes

*money pool is made up of clothing deal, already in place scholarship money**

Barrand, Katie. "Paying College Athletes? I Think Not." Medium, Medium, 19 Oct. 2016, https://medium.com/@katiebarrand/paying-college-athletes-i-think-not-8922daf0a7d9.

BobarakiS, Stephen. "Paying College Athletes: A Complicated Issue." Medium, Medium, 7 May 2015, https://medium.com/@stevebob15/paying-college-athletes-what-s-the-debate-a90843cf5a4f.

Nikitas, Charles. "Paying College Athletes." Medium, Medium, 20 Apr. 2017, https://medium.com/@176176/paying-college-athletes-ac07acd3b126.

Rb. "The Solution To Paying College Athletes." Medium, Medium, 28 Sept. 2017, https://medium.com/@rbpundit/the-solution-to-paying-college-athletes-9678e378cc4b.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the wake of the recent news regarding College athletes and talks about payment for playing many articles have been written discussing either the benefits or consequences of either action. To give a full picture I have researched articles from the past four years to see the progression of thoughts on the matter to form a factual analysis.

# data[].attributes.headline
Image                                                                College Athletes Are Worth Millions. Should they be paid like it?

# data[].attributes.subject
Image                                                                College Athletes Are Worth Millions. Should they be paid like it?

# data[].attributes.body
This image has no author but was posted on February 20th 2019. This is a .edu site . It is to inform and entertain and show that the coaches get all the credit. This not fair to the athletes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For my third Civic Issues Blog, I have chosen to focus on the often discussed and disputed issue of college athletes receiving compensation or stipend in addition to scholarships. While athletic scholarships can take the large burden of paying for college off of the shoulders of the student, it is often argued that scholarships do not put food on the table. Many student-athletes come from low-income and middle-income families who rely on scholarships to put their children through college and ensure an education.

Another argument comes from the idea that college athletics are almost like a full-time job. Between the weight room, classes, film studies and practices, these students spend majority of their time (especially during the season) living, breathing, sleeping and thinking about their sport. In addition to the hectic life their athletic schedule poses, some students have to work jobs late at night just to have a little extra spending money for things not covered by the university. For example, extra money to see a movie or buy clothing not affiliated with the university.

The point is that a college scholarship does not equal money in the pocket (Huffington Post).

Even with any kind of scholarship, most college athletes are considered what we call broke. The top NCAA executives make close to $1 million a year, and the average coach makes around $100,000 a year; and what do the athletes make? Nothing. The coaches will receive bonuses for their teams making the playoffs, winning championships and breaking school records. What will the athletes receive? Nothing. The athletes are what ultimately bring in the money. So shouldn't they be the ones receiving the compensation?

Unfortunately it is just not the case.

The NCAA also makes an absurd amount of money off of college athletics. Recently, the NCAA and CBS signed a $10.8 billion television agreement over ten years.

The NCAA is considered a non-profit organization. Let that sink in.

The athletic department also makes a sizable profit off of the achievements of their athletic teams. The department might be mentioned once after a championship run, but the team itself will be in the paper for the entire year.
The team will receive nothing in compensation.
The flip side, of course, is that not all teams make the same amount of profit, so it would be hard to pay each athlete the same. While I understand that, the money that the university makes from television agreements and licensing deals could be easily allocated towards their athletes.

Another argument is that these athletes are worth millions, so start paying them like it (Forbes). Universities expect a certain amount of professionalism from their athletes, however, they do not pay them like professional athletes. For example, Stanford's star tailback and 2017 Heisman Trophy runner-up Bryce Love missed the Pac-12 media day in order to go to the extra classes he signed up for. Love, a human biology major, decided to take extra classes to graduate early. His absence at the pro-day was frowned upon, and he was criticized for his lack of professionalism as a star athlete. But he is, in fact, a student-athlete, and a prestigious university like Stanford should be applauding his efforts to go to class.

The truth is, athletes like Bryce Love bring in millions to their universities.

And coaches like Nick Saban are great, but the reason he gets paid millions of dollars is because of his ability to recruit athletes to play football at his university for almost free (Forbes).

Hopefully in the years to come there will be a solution to come out of all this debate. But until then, we can only hope that these student-athletes are able to juggle it all.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2018/07/26/college-athletes-are-worth-millions-they-should-be-paid-like-it/#504a09a2452e

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/tyson-hartnett/college-athletes-should-be-paid_b_4133847.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College athletes are worth millions. Should they be paid like it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For my third Civic Issues Blog, I have chosen to focus on the often discussed and disputed issue of college athletes receiving compensation or stipend in addition to scholarships. While athletic scholarships can take the large burden of paying for college off of the shoulders of the student, it is often argued that scholarships do not put food on the table.

# data[].attributes.headline
Image                                              Should College Athletes Be Paid?

# data[].attributes.subject
Image                                              Should College Athletes Be Paid?

# data[].attributes.body
This image was posted on June 15th 2011 by Danny Tyree. This reveals the site is cautious @.com. There is no grammar errors. The picture is made to inform or entertain . The picture is discribed as the coaches for the D-1 college have the money.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Steve Spurrier, head football coach of the University of South Carolina, has said he would be willing to pay 70 players a $300 per game stipend out of his own pocket. The Pay College Athletes Association wants to establish a fund paid into by fans and companies seeking endorsers. New National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) President Mark Emmert is wrestling with booster demands for using part of TV revenues to provide expense money for athletes.

Yes, the tenacious idea of (further) rewards for college athletes has bubbled to the surface again ā?" and should be left simmering a long time. No one can deny that many players come from a devastatingly poor background, that players work hard or that (some) college sporting events rake in big money. But we need to keep things in perspective.

Perhaps we could tone down the rhetoric a little. Some pundits have derided the exploitation of college athletes as a "plantation system." That description is dead on - except that no one is forcing the players to go to college, no one is forcing them to play for a particular team, no one is asking them to "tote that bale" of a student loan and many of them stand the chance of soon earning enough money to buy and sell the college president.

The "Roots" theme also falls a little short in the area of punishment. ("Toby, we caught you breaking the rules. Therefore we're going to chop off - your spare tutor!")

There are just too many unanswered questions. How would teams manage to circumvent Title IX gender equity regulations? Would payments be uniform or vary from institution to institution? Would reserves be paid? Would athletes from sports that don't generate revenue be paid? Would "walking around money" also be given to the non-athlete students who are walking around trying to find milk crate furniture and day-old ramen noodles?

For some reason, people are placing way too little value on the sweet deal that athletes already receive. I can just imagine how these revisionists would change "It's The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown." ("I got five pieces of candy." "I got a chocolate bar." "I got a quarter." "I got a rock." "I got a full scholarship with room and board and a book allowance and national TV exposure." "Good grief! What a LOSER!")

Supporters of reform are convinced that a stipend plan will cut down on rule violations and scandals. You know, just like perks, expense accounts and privileges have given us such a clean, honest Congress.

Everybody with any connection to a team's success wants a piece of the pie from TV and merchandising money. Certainly the cash-strapped Greek government will get into the act. ("We Greeks invented the first true alphabet, so we demand a royalty for every x and o you use in your game plans.")

A need-based NCAA Student Assistance Fund currently contains $59 million to deal with hardship cases. Why not enhance it, streamline it and publicize it - instead of completely giving up on the ideal of amateur athletics?

Let's not forget the focus of providing an education (including values such as patience and dues-paying). If nothing else, boosters need to take a remedial Lit class and bone up on IRONY. Then they'll recognize the need to change the University of Tennessee VOLUNTEERS to the University of Tennessee Show-Me-The-Moneys.
©2011 Danny Tyree. Danny welcomes reader e-mail responses at [email protected] and visits to his Facebook fan page "Tyree's Tyrades". Danny's weekly column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info on using columns, please email Cari Dawson Bartley at [email protected] or call 800 696 7561.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Steve Spurrier, head football coach of the University of South Carolina, has said he would be willing to pay 70 players a $300 per game stipend out of his own pocket. The Pay College Athletes Association wants to establish a fund paid into by fans and companies seeking endorsers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article                                            The History Behind The Debate Over Paying NCAA Athletes

# data[].attributes.subject
Article                                            The History Behind The Debate Over Paying NCAA Athletes

# data[].attributes.body
This article posted on April 23rd 2018 by Jon Solomon was revised in 2020. This site is @.org which is trusted . THis is to inform the public about how this started and the history of debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Aspen Institute Sports & Society Program held a conversation May 1 in Washington, DC titled "Future of College Sports: Reimagining Athlete Pay." The discussion was livestreamed at as.pn/collegesportsfuture. The Aspen Institute discussion explored the implications if NCAA athletes could be paid by outside entities for use of their names, images, and likenesses, like any college student.
While speaking at the Aspen Institute in 2016, NCAA president Mark Emmert raised concerns that University of Texas swimmer Joseph Schooling had recently received a $740,000 bonus from Singapore for winning a gold medal at the 2016 Olympics. Schooling didn't just win gold; he was Singapore's first Olympic gold medalist and beat the great Michael Phelps.

This payment was perfectly permissible under NCAA rules, which since 2001 have allowed US Olympians to compete in college while pocketing tens of thousands of dollars (and sometimes six figures) from the United States Olympic Committee for winning gold, silver, or bronze. The NCAA added an exception in 2015 to also allow international athletes to receive bonuses.

Still, a college swimmer making nearly three-quarters of a million dollars concerned some NCAA members because, Emmert said, "that's a little different than 15 grand for the silver medal for the US of A. ... The members at that time hadn't anticipated this phenomenon of like the Singaporean kid getting paid a very large amount."

Never mind that NCAA rules allow two-sport athletes to be paid professionals in one sport while competing in a different college sport, such as Kyle Parker's $1.4 million baseball signing bonus while serving as Clemson's quarterback in 2010. Or that tennis players can receive up to $10,000 per year in prize money (and additional cash on a per-event basis) before or during college. Or that college football players can receive bowl gifts up to $550 in value, which can involve players selecting high-tech electronics from a gift suite or receiving a Visa gift card. Or that schools have student-assistance funds to help athletes financially, including paying five-figure insurance policies for elite athletes who want to protect their professional futures.

Emmert's description of his membership's concerns about the swimming bonus reflects the never-ending definition of NCAA amateurism. Amateurism is whatever the NCAA says amateurism is at any particular moment.

As US District Judge Claudia Wilken wrote in her 2014 ruling in the Ed O'Bannon v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit case against the NCAA over the commercialized use of players' names, images and likenesses: "The association's current rules demonstrate that, even today, the NCAA does not necessarily adhere to a single definition of amateurism."

The challenges are adding up for the NCAA both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion. Speaking at a 2017 meeting of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, Emmert released internal NCAA polling showing that among all Americans, 79 percent say major universities value money ahead of college athletes.

"I can't think of anything 79 percent of Americans agree to," Emmert said, "but they agree to that."

Such is the state of college sports. How America's college sports system got here - the only country in the world to attach a highly-commercialized, multibillion-dollar industry to higher education, thus resulting in ongoing legal challenges and public criticism - is a long story. Three key events help trace the journey.

1. Why NCAA athletes are called student-athletes

The term "student-athlete" is ingrained in the college sports vernacular. NCAA-organized press conferences involve a moderator seeking questions for any of the "student-athletes," a term that historically comes to define the NCAA's perceived moral authority and its justification for existence.

It's a term rooted in legal calculations. Walter Byers, the NCAA's first executive director, created "student-athlete" in the 1950s to help the NCAA fight against workmen's compensation insurance claims for injured football players.

"The student-athlete was a term used to try to offset these tendencies for state agencies or other governmental departments to consider a grant-in-aid holder" to be an employee, Byers said in court testimony during the 1990s. Soon, the term "student-athlete" became embedded in all NCAA rules and interpretations.

"Student-athlete" first surfaced when the widow of Ray Dennison, who died from a head injury in 1955 while playing in Colorado for the Fort Lewis A&M Aggies, filed for workmen's compensation death benefits. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with the defendant that Dennison's widow was not eligible for benefits because the college was "not in the football business."

"The term student-athlete was deliberately ambiguous," Pulitzer Prize-winning author Taylor Branch wrote in The Atlantic in 2011. "College players were not students at play (which might understate their athletic obligations), nor were they just athletes in college (which might imply they were professionals). That they were high-performance athletes meant they could be forgiven for not meeting the academic standards of their peers; that they were students mean they did not have to be compensated, ever, for anything more than the cost of their studies. Student-athlete became the NCAA's signature term, repeated constantly in and out of courtrooms."

Athletes may be receiving degrees, but many examples show that pockets of athletes are not receiving a quality education.

The student-athlete defense helped the NCAA win - and avoid - numerous liability cases through the years. The most notable win was a lawsuit brought by former Texas Christian University (TCU) running back Kent Waldrep, who was paralyzed in a 1974 football game against the University of Alabama. TCU stopped paying his medical bills after nine months and the Waldrep family coped for years on charity.

Shortly after NCAA Division I schools began carrying catastrophic insurance for football players in 1991, Waldrep sued. He claimed he was an employee of TCU at the time of his injury and covered by workers compensation laws. Waldrep initially won $70 a week for life and medical expenses dating to the accident, but TCU's insurance carrier appealed.

Finally, in 2000, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Waldrep was not an employee because he and TCU intended for him to participate in sports as a student. As part of its decision, the Texas Supreme Court wrote that a basic purpose of the NCAA was to make the student-athlete an integral part of the student body, and cited the definition of an amateur student-athlete from the NCAA bylaws: "one who engaged in athletics for the education, physical, mental, and social benefits he derives therefrom, and to whom athletics is an avocation."

The power of the student-athlete label has played out in legal circles and in the public narrative. Today, the NCAA promotes that more than 460,000 student-athletes compete in 24 sports per year, and more than eight in 10 student-athletes will earn a bachelor's degree. The value of a college degree is viewed very favorably by many Americans, especially as tuition costs continue to skyrocket that causes students to carry college-loan debt well into adulthood.

Yet the money keeps growing in college sports. The combined revenue for the five major conferences (SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, Pac-12) increased by 266 percent from 2005-15, according to the Knight Commission. In 2015, the 53 public schools from the five major conferences paid their football coaching staffs (530 individuals) a combined $405.5 million, compared to $179.8 million in scholarships to their football players (4,979 individuals).

In recent years, the NCAA changed some rules to allow new benefits for athletes. Schools can expand the value of athletic scholarships to include cash stipends of a couple thousand dollars to cover athletes' full cost of attendance. The NCAA now lets schools provide unlimited meals to athletes. The Pac-12 in 2014 became the first conference to guarantee athletes who are injured in college competition will have medical expenses covered up to four years by the school; the other four major conferences recently agreed to a minimum two-year standard for medical expenses covered after college.

But the criticism for the NCAA hasn't subsided. The NCAA's academic mission has increasingly been called into question. Athletes may be receiving degrees, but many examples show that pockets of athletes are not receiving a quality education. Some of them essentially major in eligibility - that is, they take (and are sometimes directed to) easier majors/courses in order to stay on the field.

The most glaring example occurred when the University of North Carolina was found by outside parties to have organized fake classes that enabled dozens of athletes to gain and maintain their eligibility. In a ruling last year that caused considerable confusion and frustration among NCAA members, the NCAA did not penalize North Carolina. The NCAA said no association rules were broken because the fraudulent classes were not available exclusively to athletes; other students had access to the courses, too. An independent report commissioned by North Carolina found that of the 3,100 students who took the fake classes over 18 years, 47.4 percent were athletes.

The North Carolina scandal also has played out in state and federal court, where the NCAA argued that it "did not voluntarily assume a legal duty to ensure the academic integrity of courses offered by its member institutions." The NCAA enforcement model "creates no legal duty to prevent NCAA members from violating NCAA rules," the association wrote.

North Carolina avoided NCAA penalties by essentially arguing that the NCAA should stay out of irregularities in college courses. This caused many critics to say that the NCAA must decide whether it's going to continue to be involved in other academic matters, such as:

Approving or withholding initial NCAA eligibility for players based on their high school transcript and curriculum

Progress toward degree requirements for college athletes to stay eligible

Penalties against schools, including postseason bans, if individual teams don't meet Academic Progress Rate benchmarks showing their players are progressing toward a degree

"Maybe we've just reached the point where if a university is going to cheat academically, the public needs to look to the university and university leadership and say, 'Does winning mean that much to you?'" retired North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, co-counsel in a lawsuit against the NCAA involving the North Carolina scandal, told CBSSports.com in 2016. "Instead, they turn to this outside organization with inconsistent standards and limited resources."

If the NCAA ever removed itself entirely from academics and became solely an organizer of sporting events, that could pose a significant threat to the association's current nonprofit model. The entire enterprise is designed around the notion that providing access to an education is sufficient compensation to players for their participation in a multibillion-dollar industry.

After all, the NCAA tells us, these players are student-athletes.

2. 1984 Supreme Court decision shifted the power to conferences

Perhaps more than anyone else, the late Supreme Court Justice Byron "Whizzer" White saw the challenges coming for the NCAA. White essentially predicted so much of this - the commercialization, the defections for TV cash, the NCAA's struggles to protect amateurism - when he wrote the dissenting opinion in the landmark NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents case that ended the NCAA's monopoly over college football television contracts.

"By mitigating what appears to be a clear failure of the free market to serve the ends and goals of higher education," White wrote in 1984, "the NCAA ensures the continued availability of a unique and valuable product, the very existence of which might well be threatened by unbridled competition in the economic sphere."

The NCAA once controlled football television - who got the exposure on TV and how the money was distributed to schools. The University of Oklahoma and University of Georgia sued to change the power structure. An appellate court and the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision that the NCAA's control over football TV contracts was illegal.

The Supreme Court handed down a 7-2 decision against the NCAA. The only justice joining White in dissension was William Rehnquist. White warned that the court was making a mistake by "subjugating the NCAA's educational goals ... to the purely competitive commercialism of [an] 'every school for itself' approach to television contract bargaining."

After the decision, schools began merging into larger conferences and ended the once-common practice of independent status. Conferences soon held the power in football - and as football's popularity grew in America, the sport became the financial engine for athletic departments. Conferences began to negotiate lucrative media rights deals, stage championship games and secure their own bowl games, and ultimately produce college football's first national championship format.

Today, the conferences now stage the College Football Playoff, which is worth about $470 million annually. Many of them have their own television network. During fiscal year 2017, the SEC distributed on average $41 million to each of its 14 universities, according to USA Today. Ten years ago, the SEC average payout per school was $11 million. The Big Ten Conference is projected to exceed $50 million in its average payout.

There's another legacy of the 1984 ruling: Buried within the NCAA's landmark loss was a Supreme Court gift that kept on giving for 30 more years. In the middle of the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens dropped in limited language that states "athletes must not be paid":

"... moreover, the NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football - college football. The identification of this 'product' with an academic tradition differentiates college football from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the character and quality of the 'product,' athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like."

There were just three sentences in a 19,000-word brief. The topic (player compensation) had nothing to do with the issue at hand (football TV contracts). No one testified about player compensation, and Stevens didn't appear to give much rigorous thought to what he was writing.

Stevens didn't define what "paid" means. Does that mean salaries from the school, endorsements from outside entities, or checks written as part of scholarship agreements?

Stevens didn't explain what "required to attend class" means. Does that mean a part-time student or full-time student, or perhaps attend only one class? How would Stevens interpret "required to attend class" today when compared to how frequently NCAA athletes miss school to travel to play in games? In a 2015 survey, Division I men's basketball players said they spent an average of 1.7 days a week away from campus and missed 2.2 classes. The Wall Street Journal found that eight top-25 men's basketball teams in 2018 traveled an average of more than 42 days during the season.

Though NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents wasn't about compensation for college athletes, Stevens' five words - "athletes must not be paid" - became a valuable source for many NCAA legal victories in future years. That changed when the O'Bannon case challenged the NCAA's restrictions preventing football and men's basketball players from being paid for the licensing use of their names, images, and likenesses (NILs).

Wilken, the judge in O'Bannon v. NCAA, concluded that while NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents "gives the NCAA 'ample latitude' to adopt rules preserving 'the revered tradition of amateurism in college sports' ... it does not stand for the sweeping proposition that student-athletes must be barred, both during their college years and forever thereafter, from receiving any monetary compensation for the commercial use of their names, images and likenesses."

Andy Coats, the lawyer for Oklahoma and Georgia in the 1984 Supreme Court case, said it was only a matter of time before players sought a slice of the TV pie.

"They're saying, 'Look, we're generating this money either by our play or the fact you take my image and sell it, and it's not fair,'" Coats told CBSSports.com in 2014.

The money grew too big. The time had come for legal challenges on behalf of the players.

Tom McMillen, who oversees the athletic director association for the NCAA's largest division, sums up a critical question this way: If schools could pay players, who would athletic directors predominantly pay - the players or the coaches? Surveys show ADs don't currently support constraining coaches' salaries, McMillen said.

"The system has allowed coaches' compensation to explode so it's a fair question," McMillen said. "If that hadn't happened, I think the pressure on paying athletes would be far less today. You can't have a market place where one side wins and another side doesn't win. You can't expect one side to be constrained forever. I said that in my book in 1991. I think it holds even more true today."

Top 10 College Football Coach Salaries

Steve Spurrier (Florida), $2.1 million

Nick Saban (Alabama), $11.1 million

Bob Stoops (Oklahoma), $2 million

Dabo Swinney (Clemson), $8.5 million

Bobby Bowden (Florida State), $1.5 million

Jim Harbaugh (Michigan), $7 million

Mack Brown (Texas), $1.5 million

Urban Meyer (Ohio State), $6.4 million

Barry Alvarez (Wisconsin), $1.3 million

Rich Rodriguez (Arizona), $6 million

Phillip Fulmer (Tennessee), $1.3 million

Jimbo Fisher (Florida State), $5.7 million

Glen Mason (Minnesota), $1.3 million

David Shaw (Stanford), $5.7 million

Tommy Tuberville (Auburn), $1.3 million

Tom Herman (Texas), $5.5 millionn

Nick Saban (LSU), $1.2 million

Gary Patterson (TCU), $5.1 million

Pete Carroll (USC), $1.2 million

Kevin Sumlin (Texas A&M), $5 million

Source: USA Today Sports

3. Impact of Ed O'Bannon v. NCAA

The next chapter of challenges against the NCAA is still being written. The results will be based in part on the O'Bannon ruling - the legal precedent set, how college athletes are more cognizant of the money around them, and the public's opinion about amateurism and what it even means.

The O'Bannon case ended up with victories for both sides. The plaintiffs won a decision that certain NCAA amateurism rules violate federal antitrust law. The court determined that those rules constituted an anti-competitive conspiracy by the NCAA schools and conferences to deny men's basketball and football players monetary value for their NILs. This potentially leaves the NCAA vulnerable for more antitrust challenges.

On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Wilken's remedy to the violations: Allow schools, if they so desire, to pay players up to $5,000 per year while they are in college with payment coming after they leave school. Rejecting the remedy was a win for the NCAA. Today, the NCAA clings to a new definition of amateurism through the O'Bannon appellate decision, which tied educational expenses to athlete compensation.

"The difference between offering student-athletes education-related compensation and offering them cash sums untethered to educational expenses is not minor; it is a quantum leap," two Ninth Circuit judges wrote in 2015.

Legal threats continue against the NCAA. Two lawsuits that challenge the NCAA's current compensation limits for athletes continue - including the Martin Jenkins case led by attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who brought free agency to the NFL - envision an NCAA in which conferences and/or schools would be free to make their own independent determinations about how to fairly compensate athletes.

The ongoing NCAA college basketball scandal showed that under-the-table payments to players by coaches, financial advisors, and shoe companies are common in the sport.

Wilken, the judge in O'Bannon, recently ordered the lawsuits to trial starting Dec. 3. She essentially left the NCAA with only two arguments to use at trial: The notion that fans are drawn to college football and basketball "in part due to their perception of amateurism," and the idea that "paying student-athletes would detract from the integration of academics and athletics in the campus community." The results of the trial, and inevitable appeals, could dramatically reshape the NCAA.

According to McMillen, 79 percent of athletic directors in the NCAA's highest football subdivision support players making money off their name for non-athletic related activities, and 26 percent favor giving players the right for athletic-related pursuits. Emmert, the NCAA president, has said the Olympic model - athletes receiving sponsor money in exchange for use of their name, image and likeness - is deserving of serious consideration inside the context of college sports.

"I hate to say this, I think the plaintiff lawyers are slowing this down," McMillen said. "If you didn't have a court case now, I think college sports could have addressed this. Now, the lawyers will say they've made progress because of the court cases. It's what comes first - the chicken or the egg? But when a court case's fundamental principle is tethered to education, it's a slippery slope no one will touch right now. I think the ADs are more sympathetic to (players making money off their NIL) provided some of their concerns are addressed. They don't want it to be an abusive recruiting tool."

The NCAA's history has been to legally fight most attempts to increase benefits for athletes. The NCAA fought two court cases over expanding the value of the traditional athletic scholarship to include additional money that covers miscellaneous costs of attending college. Now, thousands of NCAA athletes who received traditional scholarships, rather than the new cost-of-attendance version, will be compensated for the difference. Last year, the NCAA and 11 major conferences settled for $208.7 million in the Shawne Alston lawsuit, which was impacted by the O'Bannon decision.

The ongoing NCAA college basketball scandal brought by federal prosecutors reflected, not surprisingly, that under-the-table payments to players by coaches, financial advisors and shoe companies are common in the sport. Three criminal cases are tied to the FBI investigation, which has resulted in 10 arrests, including charges against assistant basketball coaches at Auburn, Oklahoma State, Arizona and Southern California.

According to a Yahoo! Sports report in February, federal documents show an underground recruiting operation that could create NCAA rules issues for at least 20 Division I basketball programs - including Duke, North Carolina, Texas, Kentucky, Michigan State, Southern California, and Alabama - and more than 25 players. The amounts of impermissible benefits reported by Yahoo! Sports for one sports agency ranged from $70 for a lunch with a player's parents to tens of thousands of dollars and loans to a former North Carolina State player.

"These allegations, if true, point to systematic failures that must be fixed and fixed now if we want college sports in America," Emmert said in a statement in February 2018. "Simply put, people who engage in this kind of behavior have no place in college sports. They are an affront to all those who play by the rules."

Yet the reality is value does exist for some players above their athletic scholarship. That was highlighted in the O'Bannon case. A vice president of videogame maker Electronic Arts Sports testified that his company wants to pay players for the right to use their NILs in popular NCAA videogames that have been discontinued. EA Sports previously used the likeness of players without their permission, resulting in a $60 million settlement with plaintiffs. The average payout was expected to be around $1,600, with some players receiving several thousand dollars depending on how frequently their likeness appeared in the videogame.

A slight majority of American adults (52 percent) still believe a full scholarship is adequate compensation for a college athlete, according to a 2017 nationwide poll by The Washington Post and the University of Massachusetts Lowell. The racial divide was noteworthy: 54 percent of black Americans support paying NCAA athletes based on revenue they generate, whereas only 31 percent of white Americans support the concept.

Gaining public traction is the idea of allowing players to make money if their NIL is sold through merchandise (66 percent of Americans are in favor). A racial gap exists here as well: 89 percent of blacks say athletes should be paid for use of their NIL, while 60 percent of whites are in favor.

Some proponents of paying players argue for a free market that would reallocate the money flowing to coaches, administrators and facility upgrades to the athletes. Others argue for Congress to provide a limited antitrust exemption for college athletic departments so they could impose caps on coach pay and other athletic spending in exchange for athletes to be guaranteed more benefits, including money through use of their NIL.

"My own personal view: There could be ways to do licensing with players and make sure the companies are legit," McMillen said. "You could set up an independent, voluntary clearinghouse where the licensing staff would negotiate on behalf of all the student-athletes, much like they do in the pros. In taking this step to help elite student-athletes, like Olympic athletes can do today, it might help reduce the ever-growing pressure for universities to pay student-athletes, and that would undermine the whole college sports model."

In 2014, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick made the rare public case by an AD that college sports could manage group licensing for athletes to be paid immediately. He argued that the NCAA's problems stem from years of rules that differentiate athletes from the general student body, such as not allowing players to make money off their own name.

"You could have a group-licensing approach and say, OK, this group licensee can do a deal with EA Sports for student-athlete image and likeness, and we'll go to EA Sports and negotiate it for all of the student-athletes," Swarbrick told CBSSports.com. "Here's what it's worth if you wear the jersey in the EA Sports video(game) and here's what it's worth if you don't. You get a market read on it and you distribute it based on the way all group licenses work."

Nothing in the NCAA's history suggests it would proactively take such an approach. Allowing players to be paid by outside entities might require a court ruling, federal legislation and/or a player boycott. Big 12 Conference commissioner Bob Bowlsby predicted in 2015 that the day will come when players decide not to play in a major college sporting event.

The Olympics once passionately believed in the evolving definition of amateurism. Paid professional athletes were not allowed. During the 1980s, the move toward professionalism gradually gained full steam sport by sport over several years. The change was aided in part by the suspicion that athletes from some Eastern Bloc nations were already professionals anyway through full-time support and training by their governments.

The public hasn't stopped watching the Olympics with professionals. Making money through endorsements while being good at a sport doesn't seem to hurt interest in the Olympics, which once had the most stringent definition of amateurism. In 1960, athletes who simply had decided to turn pro were no longer amateurs under Olympic rules.
Jon Solomon is editorial director of the Aspen Institute Sports & Society Program. He was an award-winning college sports reporter for 18 years, most recently at CBSSports.com.
College sports is gradually changing amateurism definitions, too. Times change, as reflected by some NCAA members' concerns in 2016 about allowing an Olympian to get paid $740,000 while still competing in college. Some money is OK, in the view of NCAA members, but where's the limit?

If swimmers and gymnasts can be paid for winning at the Olympics, why not basketball and football players for other forms of outside compensation? If $740,000 is deemed too much for Schooling to accept from Singapore while swimming for the University of Texas, why would American swimmer Katie Ledecky making $115,000 from the Olympics be OK to swim at Stanford? And for that matter, since Ledecky made $115,000 from Olympic success, why did NCAA rules prevent her from making endorsement money and cause her to turn pro early?

Once a line has been crossed to pay athletes, what makes one amount acceptable and another unacceptable?

That's NCAA amateurism - a floating definition that's always evolving, consistently inconsistent, and forever under scrutiny.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The History Behind the Debate Over Paying NCAA Athletes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Aspen Institute Sports & Society Program held a conversation May 1 in Washington, DC titled "Future of College Sports: Reimagining Athlete Pay." The discussion was livestreamed at as.pn/collegesportsfuture. The Aspen Institute discussion explored the implications if NCAA athletes could be paid by outside entities for use of their names, images, and likenesses, like any college student.

# data[].attributes.headline
 Article                                     Pay for Play: Should College Athletes Be Compensated?  

# data[].attributes.subject
 Article                                     Pay for Play: Should College Athletes Be Compensated?  

# data[].attributes.body
Brennan Thomas published Pay for Play: Should College Athletes Be Compensated posted on April 4th 2011 and was revised in present 2020. His article does relate on a high relatable level that these college athletes may have. The sight it was posted on bleacherreport.com reveals that it is trusted and is tying to show an athletes everyday life , involving workouts , classes, practices , and along with games. He made no spelling or grammar errors in this article. This article is trying to persuade and teacher that the athletes go through so much more then expected . Maybe more then the pro leagues. This leads the debate they should be gifted or compensated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pay for Play: Should College Athletes Be Compensated?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Grinding through grueling workouts, practices and games every day of the year, combined with rigorous college courses, student-athletes are some of the hardest working people in the country…

# data[].attributes.headline
Article                                             College Athletes Deserve to Be Paid or Their Play

# data[].attributes.subject
Article                                             College Athletes Deserve to Be Paid or Their Play

# data[].attributes.body
Matthew Brooks fought hard to get his point across when this was posted June 1st 2018 and revised 2020. This site is @.org which is very trusted . His article proves a point that it they should be paid for playing their particular sport. The athletes do so much to be guaranteed to play pro. Matthew is persuading the audience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.headline
Article                                              College Athletes Should Get Paid.

# data[].attributes.subject
Article                                              College Athletes Should Get Paid.

# data[].attributes.body
Justin Reyes posted this article in November 20th 2019. This articles supports the fact that these athletes should be paid. This web page is .edu which proves that it is trusted and educational. Justin backs up his point and many points by exposing how much money the NCAA gets occasionally. This was to inform the unknown.

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

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

Media by NCAA Money Revenue.

Media by All NCAA College Sports.

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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.headline
Video                                                      14 Sould College Athletes Be Paid Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.subject
Video                                                      14 Sould College Athletes Be Paid Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.body
This video was posted on Youtube.com July 11 2014 and revised 2020. The consists of interviews and multiple stand points of both sides. The video in which it came from was on the official CNN channel. This article is meant to inform the unknown in great detail about the topic.

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

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

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

List of the Pros of Paying College Athletes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of the Cons of Paying College Athletes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.headline
Video                                                        The NCAA Will Allow Athletes to make profit for their name, image, and likeness in a major shift for the organization.

# data[].attributes.subject
Video                                                        The NCAA Will Allow Athletes to make profit for their name, image, and likeness in a major shift for the organization.

# data[].attributes.body
This video published October 29th 2019 1:50pm was revised October 29 2019 6:22pm and was posted by Jabari Young . This page reveals it to be cautious. The reason for this is to inform that these athletes are being paid for their image .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The NCAA will allow athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness in a major shift for the organization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The organization’s board voted unanimously to allow the change, though the NCAA’s three divisions must still craft their own rules.

# data[].attributes.headline
Counterclaim Article                                       Point/ Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes

# data[].attributes.subject
Counterclaim Article                                       Point/ Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes

# data[].attributes.body
This article found on the web by A. Johnson and John Acqaviva has a counter claim for boths parts of the story. The URL ".com" makes the reference to be cautious. The purpose of this article is to open up ones mind to the other side by giving brief facts and information about the topic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dennis A. Johnson, Ed.D., John Acquaviva, Ph.D.

Abstract

The notion of paying college football players has been an ongoing debate since the early 1900's. With current television revenue resulting from NCAA football bowl games and March Madness in basketball, there is now a clamoring for compensating both football and basketball players beyond that of an athletic scholarship. This article takes a point/counterpoint approach to the topic of paying athletes and may have potential implications/consequences for college administrators, athletes, and coaches. Dr. John Acquaviva defends the current system in which colleges provide an athletic scholarship that provides a "free college education" in return for playing on the university team. Dr. Dennis Johnson follows with a counterpoint making the case that athletes in these sports should receive compensation beyond that of a college scholarship and forwards five proposals to pay the athletes.

Key words: pay for play, athletic scholarships

Introduction: History of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)

The idea of paying college athletes to compete dates back to what is considered to be the first intercollegiate competition. In a regatta between Harvard and Yale Universities, Harvard used a coxswain who was not even a student enrolled at the Ivy League school (5). Much like today's universities whose appetites for appearances in corporate-sponsored "big money" football bowl events; Harvard may have used the non-student to please regatta sponsor Elkins Railroad (23).

In the late 1800's, football played by college teams was a brutal sport but enjoyed by many fans. However, from 1900 to 1905, there were 45 players who died playing the sport (22). This prompted President Theodore Roosevelt to summon the presidents of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, and threaten them with a ban unless the sport was modified. As a result of that meeting, a group of 62 university presidents convened to form the Intercollegiate Athletic Association in 1906. This group evolved into the NCAA in 1910, but as a group it only possessed supervisory power (22).

College football became even more popular in the period of 1920-1940. This was a time when commercialism in the educational system was being questioned on a variety of levels. One such fundamental question was posed in 1929 by Howard Savage, a staff member of the Carnegie Foundation. He raised a question in an article entitled Athletics in American College (originally published in 1930 but reprinted in 1999) "whether an institution in the social order whose primary purpose is the development of the intellectual life can at the same time serve an agency to promote business, industry, journalism, and organized athletics on an extensive commercial basis? More importantly, the report asked "can it (the university) concentrate its attention on securing teams that win, without impairing the sincerity and vigor of its intellectual purpose" (9, p.495)? Savage also states that "alumni devices for recruiting winning teams constitutes the most disgraceful phase of recent intercollegiate athletics" (9, p. 495). In sum, the original 1929 report claimed that "big time" college sports were not educational, but were entirely financial and commercial.

Athletes during the early and mid-1900's were routinely recruited and paid to play; and there were several instances where individuals representing the schools were not enrolled as students. For example, there is one report of a Midwestern university using seven members of its team that included the town blacksmith, a lawyer, a livery man, and four railroad employees (5). Other athletes at colleges were given high paying jobs for which they did little or no work. In 1948, the NCAA adopted a "Sanity Code" that limited financial aid for athletes to tuition and fees, and required that aid otherwise be given based on need (5). In the early 1950's, with the threat of several southern schools bolting from the NCAA, the code was revised to allow athletic scholarships to cover tuition, fees, and a living stipend.

However, by the mid-1950's many schools were still struggling with the issue of offering athletic scholarships. Some university presidents ultimately decided to maintain the principles of amateurism and further serve the mission of higher education. Those were presidents of universities that today make up the Ivy League. They concluded that it was not in the best interest of their universities to award athletic scholarships, and have remained steadfast even today.

After passing Title IX in the mid 1970's, the NCAA absorbed the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) and began to govern women's sport at the collegiate level. Over the past 50 years, the NCAA has also expanded into three divisions with a multitude of championship events on a yearly basis (20). There are more than 1,300 member institutions that represent an estimated 400,000 student athletes who participate in sport (21). The result of this growth and development are enormous increases in revenue. NCAA President Mark Emmert reports the NCAA revenues for the 2010-11 fiscal year is projected at $757 million, of which $452.2 million will go to Division I members (14).

While seemingly operating in a purely capitalistic/professional atmosphere, the NCAA continues to endorse an amateurism concept in college athletics. These competing, and often contradictory, values lead some college athletes in big time football and basketball programs to question the status quo of the present system through their words and actions. For example, many athletes are still attempting to get their "piece of the pie," albeit under the table. And so it leads to our point-counterpoint.

Point: College Athletes Should Not Be Paid

The intensity of the argument to pay college athletes has escalated in the past few years. Perhaps it's because of the current economic climate and everyone, including amateur athletes is looking for ways to make money? Or maybe it's because many higher learning institutions have given the public access to their annual budget and readers focus on the profit of select athletic programs? Or maybe it is due to the absurd coaches' salaries and the money that colleges make from football bowl games and basketball tournaments? Regardless, this has magnified the fact that the athletes see none of these profits and thus begs the simple question: "Where's my share?" Perhaps a fair question, but to understand this argument better, a healthy debate is needed. So, here are some points to consider.

Point #1: Education is Money

Colleges and universities provide an invaluable and vital service to our communities: education. A now-famous bumper sticker once read: "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance." To address that very slogan, the U.S. census bureau, as reported by Cheesman-Day and Newberger (7), expressed this best when they reported that the lifetime earnings for those with a college degree are over $1 million dollars more than non-graduates. Despite such a statistic, essays and op-ed columns continue to pour in from those who favor paying student-athletes while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge or accept the value of a college education. Is a college education priceless or not?

A sports-journalist in a recent national radio interview proposed that any argument against paying college athletes based on the sole reason that education is the prize is "antiquated". But what seems antiquated and even shortsighted is the belief that paying a college athlete some (or even a lot of) money will solve all or even some of student's long-term issues. The fear of the NCAA, as it should be, is that the mere notion of paying college athletes undermines the university's primary purpose - education, something far more valuable than a modest annual stipend proposed by many. If it currently appears that the universities "don't really care" about the athlete, paying them would intensify that belief, not dissolve it.

The irony in this dispute is that student-athletes do cost the university a substantial amount of money each year. For example, a full scholarship over four years can range between $30,000 and $200,000 depending if the institution is public or private (29). But let's address this main point head on: There is an obvious lack of appreciation of a college degree from those in favor of paying athletes, and until a genuine gratitude for this concept develops, this argument will probably continue to linger.

Point #2: There Are Problems with Payment

Despite the well-documented scandals and corruption in college athletics (30), many would probably agree that paying athletes would exponentially increase the need for intense NCAA oversight - an enormous task by all accounts. Plus, there are the practical issues to consider. For example, how much should the athletes get paid and will payments be based on performance? What if the athlete gets hurt? What if the athlete is a bust and despite remaining on the team, doesn't start or even play at all? - Issues that seem to raise far more questions than answers. But perhaps most important - What will happen to the non-revenue sports at the colleges who lose money from all of their sports programs - including football and basketball? It has been shown that only a fraction of Division I football and men's basketball programs turn a profit (24, 20). The other Division I football and basketball programs as well as sports such as baseball, softball, golf, hockey, women's basketball (minus a couple of notable programs), and just about all Division II sports not only fail to make money, but actually drain their athletic budgets. The outcome here would be inevitable: Forcing athletic departments to pay its football and basketball players would result in the eventual elimination of most, if not all, of the non-revenue sports. Is that what we want?

We cannot afford to be myopic on this issue. That is, there are only a limited number of programs that make big money, but yet there are hundreds of schools who absorb big losses at the cost of providing athletes a place to compete and earn a degree. The purpose of the NCAA, along with Amateur Athletic Union (AAU), Little League, and dozens of other organized forms of amateur sport is to provide a venue to play these sports - something we should not take for granted. The problem is that some have shifted in thinking that playing an organized sport is a right, whereas it still stands as a privilege.

Point #3: The University Offers More Than an Education

Concerts, lecture series by prominent people, on-stage productions, movies, intramural sports, fitness facilities, and a variety of clubs are all part of the typical university experience. Most students agree that colleges are self-contained acres of learning and socializing, all which takes place in a safe environment. It's common for schools to subsidize the above-mentioned on-campus activities by adding fees to the tuition - which means that it's free to a full-scholarship athlete. Other benefits to the athlete include the regular use of pristine gyms, well-manicured fields, athlete-only (and often team-only) workout facilities, sports medicine care, the opportunity to travel via away games, specialized meal plans and free foot gear and athletic attire. In addition, athletes are improving their trade from the best coaching minds in the sport; not to mention having access to some of the best nutrition and strength/conditioning personnel. And perhaps the most overlooked benefits are that the school provides the player with high-profile name recognition, a dedicated fan base, media exposure, and a competitive atmosphere with proven rivals, all of which took decades, effort and money for each institution to establish.

Point #4: The Athletic Department Has Its Role

Keep in mind that student-athletes are not employees of the university, rather they are students first and athletes second. The university can indeed make money from the sports programs; however, for those that do, the money simply goes back into the athletic program to fund the non-revenue sports (24). In fact, every year the NCAA sponsors over 80 national championships in three divisions, demonstrating the range and depth of their organization (20). While it is true that the champion in football and men's basketball (and most other sports for that matter) seem to come from a relatively small pool of universities, it might be safe to assume that paying athletes would create an even bigger disparity since so few universities actually make money. Let's face it, we are an underdog-loving country, and paying athletes would all but ensure that teams like Butler University, who made it to the Final Four in consecutive tournaments (2010 and 2011), will never do it again.

Point #5: Athletes Know the Deal

From the moment the full-scholarship papers are signed, each participant's role is very clear: Schools accept the responsibility of the student's tuition, meal plan, and boarding, while the athlete is provided with the opportunity to earn a degree, engage in college life and play their favorite sport in a well-organized, and often high profile fashion. The document signed by each student-athlete describes this agreement in an unmistakable manner. Although wordy and at times complex - a necessity due to the nature of the agreement - there's no vagueness in the general arrangement or a hidden agenda from either party (10). A failure to honor the basic premise of any such contract would cause all forms of business - big or small - to crumble. If for some reason the university could be held liable for entrapment or some other form of dishonesty, then their athlete's argument would stand on firmer ground. But frankly, the details of this agreement are well known by all involved, and rather strangely, no one seems to mind when signing them.

In conclusion, it should be noted that any NCAA improprieties or blatant corruption may have a carry-over effect into empathizing with the position given here. While corruption and other related-concerns are legitimate and need investigation, paying college athletes still remains a separate debate. It is vital to this process to view each NCAA issue independently and avoid making judgments on them as a whole. The position here is that, like many organizations, the NCAA should not be dismissed or discredited on one issue due to the mishandling of others. Further, if the contention is that many student athletes enter college unprepared or that athletics takes up too much time to excel (or even earn a degree), those are separate, but much needed arguments, and are not related to the issue of paying athletes.

Now more than ever, we live in an era of entitlement. At one time our country viewed the chance at higher education as a priceless commodity. However, it now seems that a college education is not held in the same esteem and worse yet, some see it as simply an opportunity to earn money. Although it is now evident that there has been a failure to convince much of the public of the true value of an education, keeping college athletes as pure amateurs remains the right thing to do.

Counter Point: Athletes in "Big-Time" Sports Should Be Paid

Introduction

The argument that a college athletic scholarship is an equal quid pro quo for a college education has been utilized since athletic scholarships were approved by the NCAA in 1950's. My colleague makes one point that is totally accurate - a college graduate can in fact make a great deal more money over a lifetime when compared to non-graduates. However, the remainder of the author's points are half-truths and in reality just plain falsehoods. For instance, a "full athletic scholarships" do not provide a "free" education (as it does not cover all costs incurred from matriculation to graduation. In many cases, the university does not live up to its end of the bargain of providing an education; as evidenced by the dismal number in the graduation rates, especially among African Americans. Furthermore, the athletic scholarship is only a one-year (renewable) agreement that can be terminated by the coach or university in any given year for any reason.

In debating the pay-for-play issue in college athletics, the history of the governing body (i.e., currently the NCAA), their mission and view of amateurism, the past history of college athletes benefitting financially, and the degree to which athletes benefit from the university experience must all be examined. The counter point section of this paper addresses each point made by my colleague. Using the Eitzen (12) analogy comparing the NCAA and big-time athletic programs to the old southern plantation system will be the underpinning wellspring for the subject of athlete exploitation and the financial benefits enjoyed by the university derived from that plantation-like exploitation. An economic viewpoint will be presented to demonstrate the cartel-like atmosphere held by the NCAA while maintaining the illusion of amateurism.

Finally, five proposals that outline means to promote pay-for-play in NCAA Division I football and men's basketball will be presented. The arguments that follow are specifically tailored for those two sports at schools who receive bonus money from the NCAA, as those universities and their coaches enjoy considerable revenue from TV contracts and sponsorships generated by bowl games and "March Madness" appearances.

Point #1: Athletic Scholarships Provide a "Free Education" is not correct

As mentioned, in the 1950's the NCAA approved adding living stipends to athletic scholarships that previously included only tuition and fees. Today, the "full ride" scholarship can only include tuition, fees, room, board, and books. And as mentioned in the previous section, in some cases, depending on the school attended, that scholarship can be worth anywhere from $30,000 to $200,000, although the figures $20,000 to $100,000 over a four year period might be more accurate. In any case, that still does not cover the full cost of attending college.

The Collegiate Athletes Coalition (CAC) estimates that NCAA scholarships are worth about $2000 less than the cost of attending a university, as it does not account for expenses such as travel and sundries. Former Nebraska head football coach and United States Congressman, Tom Osborne (R-NE), calculates the gap between scholarship funding and the actual cost of attendance to be closer to $3,000. Even former NCAA President, Myles Brand, indicated that he favored increasing scholarship limits: "Ideally, the value of an athletically related scholarship would be increased to cover the full-cost of attendance, calculated at between $2,000 to $3000 more per year than is currently provided, I favor this approach of providing the full cost of attendance" (23, p.232).

So yes, the scholarship can be seen as pay for play, or at the very least, a quid pro quo for services rendered during a four year period. However, even with a full scholarship, an athlete will have to pay somewhere between $8,000 and $12,000 out of pocket to bridge the cost-of-living gap. Therefore, the full athletic scholarship does not provide a "free" education. Thus question remains: is the full scholarship a fair and equitable deal for the athlete?

Athlete Exploitation-The Plantation System

Eitzen (12) among others (27) makes the analogy that the NCAA operates like the "plantation system" of the old south. The coaches are the overseers who get work from the laborers (players) who provide riches for the masters (universities) while receiving little for their efforts. Perhaps slightly over-stated (obviously the athlete is not a slave, but maybe an indentured servant), the student-athlete is dominated, managed, and controlled, and they don't receive a wage commensurate to their contribution as expressed in dollars earned by the university. Eitzen notes that athletes are sometimes mistreated physically and mentally and are often denied the rights and freedoms of other citizens. Ultimately, they have no real democratic recourse in an unjust system.

There are other similarities to the plantation analogy. Slaves were not free to leave the plantation much like an athlete cannot get out of a letter of intent (without penalty) and/or transfer without the penalty of sitting out a year. Much like the slaves who had no right to privacy, athletes are subject to mandatory drug testing (even though their coaches/masters are not tested), room checks, and limits on where they can and cannot go in the community. The athletes can be prohibited from political protests and the right to assemble. And finally, they can be subjected to mental cruelty and physical abuse (e.g., early morning torture sessions), all in order to create obedient slaves; student athletes.

Furthermore, collegiate athletics is often the only game in town for many of these athletes. For instance, football players must be in their third year of college or over the age of 21 to enter the National Football League (NFL). Basketball players, on the other hand, must attend college for one year or ultimately sit out a year before they can enter the National Basketball Association (NBA). Thus, the college game has become a "feeder system" similar to a minor professional league and it is in reality, "the only game in town."

Point #2: Athletes Don't Know the "Real" Deal

My colleague is partially correct in that most student athletes know that they are getting a scholarship that will allow them to go to school and play a sport. However, many don't know the "real deal" as they generally have very little understanding they are about to enter a "plantation-like" system in which their scholarship in not guaranteed (i.e., renewable yearly) and can be terminated at any time. Student-athletes are also a led to believe that they will play and receive a college degree while possibly picking up a few fringe benefits along the way.

Take, for example, the recent stories regarding players like Reggie Bush, Cam Newton, or the players at Ohio State who received money and/or other benefits as a result of playing football. Even though student athletes know they will not get directly paid for playing, many desire and even expect some form of compensation. Slack (25) surveyed 3,500 current and retired football players in 1989 only to find that 31% had received under the table money during their college careers and 48% knew of others who had received payments. This seems to imply that while many recruits may indeed know "the deal", they display their discontent by accepting payments or other benefits not currently allowed by the NCAA.

In reality, the statement "athletes know the deal" with regard to academic achievement and degree completion seems to lack substance. Dr. Nathan Tublitz, co-chair of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletes, an organization of 51 faculty senates whose purpose is to remind college presidents, athletic directors, and coaches that student athletes are students first. He points out that:

"...schools aren't doing these kids any favors by admitting them when it's unlikely that they will succeed academically. We bring 17 year-old kids, some of them from the inner city and we wine and dine them. They have female chaperones. We put them up in fancy hotels. They come here and see an incredibly fancy locker room with individual TV screens, air conditioning and videogames. They go in and see the new football stadium and the new $200 million basketball arena. They see a medical training facility that is stunningly beautiful with waterfalls, treadmill pools, and the sate-of-the-art medical and dental equipment. They come here and are treated like royalty. Until they break a leg or get put on the second string and they get set aside. Many don't earn a degree. They don't have the training or the skills to be independent after they leave the university. They're lost (28, p.D10)."

When the scholarship is signed, the athlete and his family have reasonable expectations which include efforts by the coaching staff and university administration to meet all obligations of the contract. Additionally, my colleague notes, "that failure to honor the basic premise of any such contract would cause all forms of business - big or small - to crumble." If the NCAA and athletic departments in higher education are a business, why are they allowed to act in a cartel-like fashion? And finally, do student athletes really know the "deal" when they penned their name on national signing day? It appears they don't.

Point #3: The University Offers More than Education-It's Possible-But Not Probable

Academic Detachment. My colleague also makes the claim that the university offers more than an education (e.g., concerts, lectures, intramurals, and clubs) in settings that enrich the college experience. Due to the plantation effect, however, many athletes are not able to take advantage of those events. For instance, few if any of the scholarship athletes would be allowed to play in an intramural contest for the coach's fear of injury. Student athletes are also over-scheduled with study halls, practices, weight training sessions, film study, individual workouts, more practice, travel, and competition; all in an attempt to help athletes maintain focus on their sport.

Adler and Adler (1) spent five years recording systematic information regarding the athletes' lives in a big-time college basketball program. After observing, interviewing, and traveling with them, they concluded that big-time basketball and being seriously engaged in academics were not compatible. They also found that freshmen had a period of optimism regarding academics when they first arrived on campus, but after about two semesters they found that the social isolation combined with the fatigue of training kept them from becoming involved in academic life.

Positive feedback these basketball players earned was always athletic-related and not academic. They soon learned what they had to do to stay eligible. Coaches made sure they scheduled classes that did not interfere with practices. Ultimately, the researchers realized that academic detachment was encouraged by the peer culture, and because of their social status (e.g., big man on campus), it became difficult for them to focus on academics.

Coakley (8) reported that not all of the athletes in the Adler & Adler (1) study experienced academic detachment. Those who entered college well-prepared with appropriate high school courses, strong parental support and an ability to develop relationships outside of sport were able to succeed in the classroom. It's important to note that too many minority athletes from low socioeconomic environments struggle in academics - an issue that is often perpetuated by the coaches. For instance, Robert Smith, former running back for Minnesota Vikings and pre-med student while at Ohio State, needed two afternoon labs in the same semester. Since the labs conflicted with practice, coaches suggested that he drop them because of the commitment he made to play football. Against the wishes of the coaching staff, Smith took the classes but was forced to sit out the season as red shirt athlete; a further example of the plantation effect.

Benson (3) noted that one perspective was missing from the literature included a full expression from the black athletes point of view. Benson conducted a qualitative interview study of 12 African American students at a DI football program where the graduation rate was 31-40% for black football players compared to 60-70% of white football players. The results in this instance cannot be generalized due to the small sample size (N=12), but it does provide a snapshot of the thoughts regarding education and athletics of this group. Further, they reflect the results obtained by Adler & Adler (1).

Another major finding of the Benson (3) study was that the marginal academic performance was created by a series of interrelated practices engaged in by all significant members of the academic setting, including peers, coaches, advisors, teachers, and the student athletes themselves. It began in the recruitment, and continued through the first year. Black student athletes received the message that school was not important, and that as time passed, they had no real control over their destiny in the classroom. It was simply a matter of survival to keep the grade point average (GPA) to a point to be eligible. They all felt like the coaches did not "walk the talk" in terms of academics. They would just talk the academic game in public but then in reality they would have "fits" if classes ever interfered with the program. Simply put, student athletes learned it was a matter of survival and a basic expectation to maintain a GPA just high enough to remain eligible to compete (3).

"The Black Dumb Jock". Harry Edwards (13) discussed the creation of the "black dumb jock" image prior to studies completed by Alder and Alder (1), Benson (3), and Coakley (8). He (i.e., Edwards) theorized that they were not born, but rather systematically created. The previous mentioned studies serve as evidence to support his statement (1, 3, 8). The exploitation of athletes is not solely an NCAA issue but a societal one. For example, Fred Butler was passed on through elementary, middle, and high school because he was a good football player. He graduated from high school reading at a second grade level and went to El Camino Junior College. There he took a number of physical activity classes while hoping to be drafted into the NFL. When no offer came, he played at California State University-Los Angeles for a year and a half. When again no offer came and his eligibility expired, he failed out of school within months with no degree, no offers to play pro ball, and no skills to use for employment. And he still could not read! (18). Similarly, Former NFL player Dexter Manley testified before a Senate Committee that he played four years at Oklahoma State University, only to leave the school illiterate. And the sad feature is that academic detachment from the university athletic department perspective doesn't seem to be an issue because there are always more impoverished (and usually minority) kids waiting to come in and play.

Thus, student athletes in many cases cannot take advantage of the many extras offered by a college education. Why do athletes accept a diluted academic experience or the corruption of doctored transcripts, phantom courses, surrogate test takers, and tutors writing papers? Perhaps it is because they are disenfranchised under the current system, and will lose scholarships, starting roles, and eligibility if they complain. George Will argued that "College football and basketball are, for many players, vocations, not avocations, and academics are unsubstantiated rumors" (12, p.5). So do full scholarship athletes get a chance to take advantage of all the extras of the university experience? More than likely it is not the case especially when they can't even hope for a meaningful degree.

NCAA as a Cartel. Kahn (16) examined the operation of the college football and basketball systems of the NCAA and offers lessons about the determinants and effects of supply and demand. Specifically he utilizes economic principles to calculate the value of college football player to a university. He notes that total ticket revenues for football and men's basketball were $757 million in 1999, total value that exceeded the total ticket sales for all of professional baseball, football, and hockey that year. A figure indicating that the NCAA is a very successful business entity engaged in capitalism.

According to the cartel theory, the NCAA has "enforced collusive restrictions on payments for factors of production, including player compensation, recruiting expenses, and assistant coaches salaries; it has restricted output; and it has defeated potential rival groups (16, p. 211)." He notes, along with others (11, 15, 16, 30), that the NCAA can impose sanctions that range from scholarship reductions, elimination from post-season play to program death penalties (e.g., Southern Methodist football); and possibly even threaten a school's academic accreditation. However, restriction of pay to players is the main way in which the organization acts to restrict competition.

Economists who have studied the NCAA "view it as a cartel that attempts to produce rents, both by limiting payments for inputs such as player compensation and by limiting output" (16, p.210). When looking at the rent values based on college football or men's basketball players' performances, they are paid below a competitive level of compensation based on estimates of marginal revenue product produced of these players (6). Their analysis considered the total revenue for a school and the number of players that were eventually drafted by a major professional league. Utilizing this framework they concluded that in 2005 dollars a draft-ready football player returned $495,000 to the university, while a draft-ready basketball player was worth $1.422 million for men's basketball. And all of this compared to the approximately $40,000 paid in scholarship worth. This indicates that the NCAA does indeed use cartel power to pay top athletes less than the athlete's market value.

Based on a workload of 1000 hours per year and an average scholarship value, economist Richard Sheehan (16) calculated the basic hourly wage of a college basketball player at $6.82 and a football player at $7.69. Coaches' hourly wages, on the other hand, ranged from $250-$647 per hour (depending on salary). Again, using the Eitzen metaphor, the masters accumulate wealth at the slave's expense, even though the athlete/slave's health is jeopardized by participation (12).

Parent (23) notes the hypocrisy of the amateurism construct when looking at these capitalism issues. He notes that the former president of the University of Washington, William Gerberding, said, "As one contemplates the obvious fact that so many of the most gifted athletes are economically and educationally disadvantaged blacks, this becomes less and less defensible. I have become increasingly uncomfortable about having a largely white establishment maintaining an elaborate system of rules that deprives student-athletes, many of whom are non-white, of adequate financial support in the name of the ideals of amateurism" (p.236).

So, why do athletes tolerate this system? They do mainly because they are disenfranchised and fear losing their scholarships and eligibility if they complain. In essence, this pay-for-play discussion revolves around amateurism, as advertised by the NCAA, and its competing capitalistic drive for income. According to Tulsa Law School professor Ray Yasser, the best option for athletes to change the system for their benefit is to unite and "file an antitrust suit...against the NCAA and their universities, with the claim being that the NCAA and their universities are colluding to create a monopoly over the athlete's ability to share in the profits generated from college athletics" (23, p.236).

While the points for maintaining the status quo were stated previously, there has been sufficient evidence presented in this section to stimulate discussion of paying players. The "play for a diploma" agreement is not happening in many cases, as the athlete failure rate indicates. Another example is national champion Connecticut men's basketball program losing two scholarships for the upcoming season as a result of a poor Academic Performance Rating (APR) from the NCAA (11). Thus, the following pay for play proposals are being submitted for consideration.

Pay Proposals

It would appear that NCAA should get out of the commercial business of football and basketball and follow the Ivy League example of providing an environment that is truly amateur where student athletes actually are students first. That move would certainly place the student first in the student athlete term. However, it doesn't seem pragmatic that either the NCAA or any of the major universities are in any hurry to turn away millions of dollars per year in profits. Therefore, it is time to consider some pay-for-pay proposals. California and Nebraska have already passed state legislation that would enable colleges to compensate athletes; however they are blocked by the NCAA from doing so (23). Therefore, I submit five proposals that could possibly be implemented:

Big Ten Plan and/or Work Study Proposal: At the very least, the NCAA should follow former NCAA President Miles Brand's suggestion and allocate athletes include a $2,000-$3,000 cost of living increase to full scholarships. Since athletes are supposedly only allowed to spend 20 hours per week involved with sport-related activities, this might actually be paid as 20 hours of work study or as a monthly living stipend. This would provide the athletes with the needed income for clothes, laundry, sundries, travel, and other small item expenses.
Officials from the Big Ten are currently discussing a similar proposal that would help their athletes meet expenses not covered in an athletic scholarship. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany reports league athletic directors and university officials have seriously discussed using some of their growing TV revenue to pay athletes more. This proposal which would give athletes a $2,000-$5,000 per year living stipend also has the support of current NCAA president Mark Emmert (2).

SEC Game Pay Proposal: The Southeastern Conference, another of the big time football conferences recently entered into the pay for play discussion. University of South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier put forth a proposal at the recent conference meetings to pay players $300 per game. The proposal was supported by several other coaches.
This type of a proposal could pay athletes anywhere from $300-$1000 per game based on time played per game. Since most players do not play more than 30 minutes a game, a player could be paid on a per-minute of competition basis. At a rate of $20 per minute a player could net $600 for a game and approximately $6000-$7,000 per season.

Professional League Proposal: Ron Woods (27) puts forth a proposal submitted by Peter Plagensa, visiting professor at Middlebury College, regarding the pay-for-play issue. He appears to agree with the likes of Stanley Eitzen that the current practice of colleges and the NCAA do in fact "amount to a little more than a plantation system" (27, p. 67). He suggests that the big time college football and basketball maintain the million-dollar industry by making them an age 23 and under professional league. This proposal would allow universities to hire players as college staff (much like the cafeteria or groundskeepers) at moderate salaries plus room and board. Universities could also grant the athletes free academic classes until they earn a degree (even after playing days are over).

Revenue Sharing Proposal from TV/NCAA Proceeds:

"College basketball players watch the coach roaming the sidelines in his $1,500 custom-make suit. They read about his $500.000 salary and $250,000 perk from a sneaker deal. They watch the schools sell jerseys (and T-shirts) with the player's numbers on them. They see the athletic director and NCAA officials getting rich and you wonder why they might ask; hey where's my share? What am I, a pack mule" (17, p.46)

Tim Tebow related on the Daily Show (26) that he joked with his college coach prior to a national championship game about getting a cut of his bonus money to ensure a victory. This brings another revenue sharing possibility to the surface: coaches sharing their bonuses and other performance incentives with the players.
Most coaches in big time programs are paid huge bonuses based on team record and ranking, all a result of player performance. For instance, according to 2009 IRS income tax reports, Mike Krzyewski received $2,222,543 in bonuses and incentives (4). Coaches under this proposal would be required to share 25-50% of their bonuses with the players. Isn't it reasonable to expect the athletes to get a cut of the bonus money? After all, they (i.e., the players) are the ones who put the coaches in a position to earn those bonuses.

My colleague has argued in point #2 that paying athletes raise a myriad of other issues, such as how much should they receive, what happens if an athlete gets hurt, and so on. That is a discussion for another time. First, we must agree that it is fair to compensate NCAA Division I football and basketball athletes beyond that of an athletic scholarship; then and only then may payout details be chronicled. Note: a reminder that we are only discussing compensation for the NCAA Division I-A football and basketball players; not the athletes in the AAU, Little League or other truly amateur venues of organized sport.

Summary

Throughout the history of the NCAA, college athletes have routinely received compensation beyond that of a full college scholarship (e.g., room and board, tuition, books). While such compensation is illegal, athletes like Reggie Bush and others receive under-the-table benefits as evidenced in the Slack survey (25).

Additionally, many athletes in "big time" programs do not receive a degree for their efforts in the athletic arena. Universities routinely admit students based on their athletic skills that are academically ill-prepared for success. As seen in the research (1, 3), many athletes that aspire to be academically successful soon lose hope with the over-scheduling and pressures of sport preparation. As a result, many college athletes, a majority of which are minorities, fail out of school once coaches have utilized their eligibility.

The NCAA functions like a cartel, keeping cost down while increasing profits. Rents for a draft-ready athlete earn the university somewhere between $500,000 for football and $1.422 million for men's basketball (16), leading to a pseudo-plantation system where the coaches oversee the athletes demanding work and controlling their schedules on and off the field. This unbalanced system allows athletes to earn the equivalent of $6.80-$7.69 an hour (12) while coaches like Nick Saban of Alabama or Mack Brown of Texas earn over five million dollars a year (4).

If the NCAA continues as a corporate entity and acting in a cartel-like fashion making millions of dollars a year, implementing a plan to pay student athletes for playing must be considered. Otherwise, America's institutions of higher learning should follow the Ivy League schools' example and eliminate athletic scholarships, get out of the big time sport business, and get on with providing students with a complete educational experience.

Applications in Sport

Few discussions within sport are more common or controversial than the debate to pay college athletes. Some arguments are well thought and articulated, while others lack insight and are simply driven by passion. The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with a new perspective and some historical insight - all supported by the literature - regardless of their stance on this issue. Moreover, readers who may actually be heard by the NCAA may offer a position that has yet to be considered. The concession here is that despite any decision by the NCAA in the near future, we can be assured that college administrators, coaches, and athletes will continue this debate. However, their arguments may now be seen as relevant and more reasoned.

POSTSCRIPT: According to Michelle B. Hosick at the NCAA.org, the NCAA board of directors has moved on two issues discussed in this article since its submission. In April (2012), the board moved to implement a $2,000 allowance to an athlete's full scholarship. They also voted to grant multi-year scholarships. However, both measures have been put on hold with the threat of an override vote by member institutions. On January 14, 2012 at the NCAA convention the board delayed implementation of the $2,000 supplement and sent it back to committee for revision at its April meeting. The multi-year scholarship issue will continue to be implemented on a conference-by-conference basis. And so the pay-for-play discussion continues.

References

1. Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1999). College athletes in high-profile media sports: The consequences of glory. In Inside sports (pp. 162-70), edited by J. Coakley and P. Donnelly. London: Routledge.

2. Bennett, B. (May 19, 2011). Big Ten considers pay research proposal. ESPN College Football. Retrieved from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6564134.

3. Benson, K. F. (2000) Constructing academic inadequacy: African American athletes' stories of schooling. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 223- 46.

4. Berkowitz, S., & Gardiner, A. (2011, May 17). Coach K made $4.7M in 2009. USA Today, 2C.

5. Bronson, A. G. (1958). Clark W. Hetherington-Scientist and philosopher. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

6. Brown, R. W., & Jewell, T. R. (2006). The marginal revenue product of a women's college basketball player. Industrial Relations, 45 (1), 96-101.

7. Cheesman-Day, J., & Newberger, E. (2002). The big pay-off educational attainment and synthetic estimates of work-life earnings. Retrieved from www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs.

8. Coakley, J. (2007). Sports in society: Issues and controversies. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

9. Crowley, W. H. (1999). Athletics in American colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 494-502.

10. Cozzillio, M. J. (1989). The athletic scholarship and the college national letter of intent: A contract by any other name. Wayne Law Review, 35, 1275-1379.

11. Eaton-Robb, P. (2011, May 20). UConn loses 2 men's basketball scholarships. Norwich Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.norwichbulletin.com/newsnow/x31866796/UConn-mens-hoops-loses-2-scholarships#axzz1NCVV1385.

12. Eitzen, S. D. (2000, September). Slaves of big-time college sports: College athletes. USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), 125.

13. Edwards, H. (1984). The black dumb jock: An American sports tragedy. College Board Review, 131, 8-13.

14. Emmert, M. (2011). How it all adds up. NCAA Champion Magazine, 4 (2), 5.

15. Fleisher, A. A., Goff, G. L., & Tollison, R. D. (1992). The National Collegiate Athletic Association: A study in cartel behavior. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.

16. Kahn, L. M. (2007). Markets: Cartel behavior and amateurism in college sports. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 209-226.

17. Kornheiser, T. (1999, December 13). Six billion? Where's mine? ESPN The Magazine, 46.

18. Lapchick, R. (1989). Pass to play: student athletes and academics. National Education Association of the United States.

19. Madesen, R. (2001). The role of the NCAA and the need for reform in big-time college sports. Academic Exchange - EXTRA. Retrieved from http:/www.unco.edu/AE-Extra/2001/3/NCAA.html.

20. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2011). Why student-athletes are not paid to play. Retrieved from www.ncaa.org.

21. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2010). 2009-10 guide for college bound student athlete: Where academics and athletic success is your goal. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA.

22. Olterddorf, C. (1999). But what is the NCAA? What is the real purpose? And is it achieving it? Texas Alcalde, 28, 3-5.

23. Parent, C. M. (2004, spring). Forward progress? An analysis of whether student-athletes should be paid? Virginia Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, 226-244.

24. Rosner, S., & Shropshire, K. (2004). The business of sports. (pp.527-531). Ontario, Canada: Jones and Bartlett.

25. Slack, A. (1991).The underground economy of college football. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8 (1), 1-15.

26. Stewart, J., & Albanese, R. (2011, June 2). The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. [Television broadcast] New York: The Comedy Channel (MTV Networks Entertainment Group).

27. Woods, R. B. (2007). Social issues in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

28. Yost, M. (2008, March 19). A cultural conversation with Nathan Tublitz: Has serious academic reform of college athletics arrived? The Wall Street Journal, D10.

29. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Digest of education statistics, 2009 (NCES 2010-013).

30. Zimbalist, A. (1999). Unpaid professionals: Commercialism and conflict in big-time college sports. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dennis A. Johnson, Ed.D., John Acquaviva, Ph.D. The notion of paying college football players has been an ongoing debate since the early 1900's. With current television revenue resulting from NCAA football bowl games and March Madness in basketball, there is now a clamoring for compensating both football and basketball players beyond that of an athletic scholarship.

# data[].attributes.headline
Image                               College Athletes getting paid?   

# data[].attributes.subject
Image                               College Athletes getting paid?   

# data[].attributes.body
This picture posted on March 29th, 2017 by Malcolm Lemmons has a deep and debatable meaning in his "cartoon" post. The picture clearly describes why these big college athletes should be paid or employed. This post on huffpost.com shows that the "com" is trying to put something out in the world. The meaning of it informs and entertains the people or citizens with access to web about conflict and why this debate exists.