# 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.body
This Image was posted on march 29, 2017. It gives both sides of the argument. On how college athletes should get paid and why they shouldn't. This is a .com so it may not be factual. There doesn't seem to be any mistakes in spelling. The image is there to entertain, and teach.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2014, Shabazz Napier was quoted:

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

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

Pros

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

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

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

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

Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

Legal Issues Basketball March Madness Division I

Athlete, Author & Entrepreneur

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
This image was published on may 15, 2015. It was also edited on the same day too. It only has Pros to why we should pay our college athletes. It is .com so some of the information could be false, or untrue. There were no mistakes. The image was meant for teaching, and entertainment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The issue of whether college athletes should be paid for their time and effort in playing a sport is a topic of controversy. Some argue that being a student-athlete is a full-time job and therefore deserves a paycheck. Others believe that student-athletes are already being paid their scholarship money through the education they are receiving. Although the National Collegiate Athletic Association is currently against paying college athletes, there is much support for changing this standard.

There are several reasons why people think it is a good idea to pay student-athletes. Sports such as football and basketball generate a lot of money for colleges with popular televised games, such as the wildly popular March Madness. Athletic conferences and team coaches make millions per season, while the players receive none of it. The average Division 1 player spends about 43 hours a week practicing and training. As playing a sport takes up so much time, he or she is usually unable to get a "real" job. This makes it hard for the athlete to afford simple necessities, such as meal plans. Also, the player rarely receives compensation from the NCAA in the event that he or she sustains a career-ending injury. Every day the player is at risk of getting hurt. Where is the money for medical and treatment costs? Supporters believe that student-athletes should be treated as employees for the amount of profit and attention they bring to the school that they play for.

On the other hand, many argue that student-athletes should continue without pay, as they already have an advantage over students uninvolved in athletics. Student-athletes receive scholarship money for tuition, board, and textbooks. Most do not have the heavy burden of student loans that their peers tend to have. They get a lot of school necessities paid for, so why do they need the additional money? And if student-athletes were paid, there would be an even finer line between them and professional athletes. They are students, not workers, who need to focus on their education rather than playing sports for the entertainment of others.

Paying athletes is unfair as certain sports bring in much more money than others. If the NCAA does decide to pay college athletes, there needs to be standards set to ensure that they are fair for everyone.

8,513 total views, 5 views today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tweet The issue of whether college athletes should be paid for their time and effort in playing a sport is a topic of controversy. Some argue that being a student-athlete is a full-time job and therefore deserves a paycheck. Others believe that student-athletes are already being paid their scholarship money through the education they are receiving....

# data[].attributes.body
This article was published on May 4, 2015. It was also revised and edited on this date too. This article show both pros and cons for the article. Also it has counterclaims for both sides too. This is a .org so it is actually factual information. It has no errors, and the articles goal is to teach 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.body
This was published on Oct 1, 2019. It shows both sides, and a counterclaim. The article also has opinions too. It is also a .com so it my not be fully trustworthy. There are no mistakes. The article wants to teach us about the topic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College athletics is less a nonprofit enterprise than an industry exploiting its workers, writes Brian Rosenberg, the president of Macalester College, in The New York Times. He points out that universities with top teams can rake in nearly $20 million a year from Nike or Adidas sponsorships, while the athletes themselves, whose talent is what attracts such sponsorships in the first place, walk away with nothing. He writes:

College basketball players are worth a lot of money, but they aren't legally allowed to make it. So the schools, coaches, agents and shoe companies make the money instead - all in the name of "amateurism."

Katelyn Ohashi, a former University of California, Los Angeles, gymnast, has criticized the unfairness of N.C.A.A. rules that prevented her from making any money from a video of a perfect floor routine that went viral earlier this year. She told Mr. Newsom:

Here's the fame, but then there's no compensation, and it's so crazy. People are like, "Oh, you must be so rich." And I'm like, "You must not know the N.C.A.A." ... When my routine went viral, [N.C.A.A. President] Mark Emmert called me to congratulate me, and I'm like, "You should be thanking me."

In fact, according to an analysis cited in The Economist, if players were paid in proportion to the amount of revenue they generated for their colleges, "the top 10 percent of football and 16 percent of basketball players would be paid around $400,000 and $250,000 a year respectively." While the N.C.A.A.'s desire to keep so-called professionalism out of college sports may have made sense before they became such a big business, the author writes, it's clearly an illusion that no longer holds:

The two most lucrative college sports, American football and basketball, are highly competitive. Many universities are willing to bend over backward to enroll talented players. And the argument that university athletics remains amateur would hardly earn passing marks in even an introductory college course.

Removing the N.C.A.A. restrictions on endorsements would create a winner-take-all dynamic within and among universities, writes Cody J. McDavis, a former Division I basketball player. The best players at the best schools would reap all the benefits, Mr. McDavis says, while less popular sports and athletes would suffer. He writes:

Major brands like Nike would pay top football and basketball talent at the biggest schools, while student-athletes in other sports or at smaller programs would be ignored. Currently, corporate funds go to athletic departments and are generally distributed among all sports; with third-party payments, those funds could instead mostly go directly to a few student-athletes, starving the rest.

The N.C.A.A., for its part, has said the California law "would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletes." Even The Los Angeles Times editorial board, which came out in favor of the law, acknowledges that some change to the spirit of college athletics would be inevitable. They write:

The measure would inevitably eat away at the distinction between professional and college sports. Celebrated collegians could make money not only by endorsing sneakers and sports drinks, but also by autographing jerseys, pitching workout videos and putting their name on baseball bats and hockey sticks. In short, they could profit from the fame that their work as an athlete brings.

As those on opposing sides of California's law debate how the fruits of the college sports economy ought to be distributed, others assert that the solution is simply to decommercialize the activity altogether.

Jonathan R. Cole, a professor at Columbia and author of "Toward a More Perfect University," suggests in The Atlantic that the emphasis placed on campus athletics is " totally out of control." In 41 states, he writes, the highest-paid public employee is not a professor or neurosurgeon, but rather a college football or basketball coach. For students, meanwhile, the difficulty of keeping up with both coursework and demanding athletic schedules has created an incentive for academic fraud. Taken together, a picture emerges of college sports as a pseudoprofessional industry that encroaches upon the mission of higher education. He writes:

For the highly selective colleges and universities, the leaders ought to roll back the percentage of recruited athletes. ... The highly selective colleges ought to withdraw from the N.C.A.A. and form their own league since they are not trying to build national championship programs. ... Finally, university leaders should consider forming special institutions located in different geographic areas that are devoted almost entirely to athletics and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence.

One school that has provided something of a model on this front is Spelman, a historically black college for women. In 2011, Spelman learned that its N.C.A.A. division was losing three members. Rather than find another conference in which to compete at great expense, the school decided to withdraw from the N.C.A.A. and eliminate its athletics department in favor of a fitness program for all students. Beverly Daniel Tatum, then Spelman's president, wrote in The Times in 2013:

Whether it's diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease, black women are more likely to suffer from these ailments - and die from them - at young ages. All are linked to obesity and lack of physical activity. ... We decided that it was more important to support our entire campus with a wellness initiative than 80 student athletes with N.C.A.A. funding.

California's changes aren't scheduled to take effect until 2023, leaving the N.C.A.A. ample time to mount court challenges to the law, which the organization has suggested violates the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. If the law is upheld, the N.C.A.A. will have to decide whether to penalize the schools with fines, which may or may not be legally enforceable, or even expel them.

For now, California is betting that the outsize importance of its universities within the world of college sports will make those threats impossible to carry out. "I don't necessarily take it to heart," Newsom said.
It's the one-month birthday of this newsletter! Do you have a topic you'd like us to cover? Is there anything you want to see more or less of? Email us at debatable@nytimes.com to tell us what you think so we can make it even better for you.
Jemele Hill makes the case for black athletes to leave white colleges for historically black ones. [The Atlantic]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Should College Athletes Be Allowed to Get Paid? (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College athletics is less a nonprofit enterprise than an industry exploiting its workers, writes Brian Rosenberg, the president of Macalester College, in The New York Times. He points out that universities with top teams can rake in nearly $20 million a year from Nike or Adidas sponsorships, while the athletes themselves, whose talent is what attracts such sponsorships in the first place, walk away with nothing.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was published on March 20, 2017. It was edited and revised on that date. It shows both sides of the article. It also has a counterclaim. The article publisher is collegexpress. It doesn't have any mistakes and its designed to teach.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The debate rages on: Should college athletes be paid to play their sport? Read our take on both sides of the argument and watch our accompanying video here!

Originally Posted: Mar 20, 2017

Should college athletes be paid? People who think college student-athletes should be paid often say the students' names and images are used on products and in advertising, among other things, so they should receive some of the profits. Those who say college student-athletes should not be paid argue that they receive scholarships as a form of payment for their talents. Then there are plenty of other questions: Would athletes be paid differently depending on the sport they play? How do you quantify the true worth of a college sports team, especially if it's making the school much more popular overall and bringing in lots of students? Where would the money even come from? The debate could go on and on. Here's a look at each side.

Why student-athletes should get paid

Being a college student-athlete is a full-time job, bouncing between the weight room, the court/field, classes, and film sessions. College athletics are extracurricular activities, but the schedules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) tournaments require an extended period in which the student-athletes must miss school. Not only do they miss class, but they are absent for nationally televised games that make a lot of money and receive millions of viewers, according to Marc Edelman in his article " 21 Reasons Why Student-Athletes Are Employees and Should Be Allowed to Unionize."

Since student-athletes also bring in revenue for their team and college or university, especially in the championship games, those who debate in favor of paying them say the students could receive a small portion of the profits. Yes, pay would vary, just as the universities with the more successful teams receive more television time or money than those with less successful teams. College football and men's basketball programs earn far more than any other athletic program, so these athletes would likely earn more as well. This may not be considered fair pay, but many of those who argue in support of paying college players point out that team popularity and consumers generally determine what is "fair." These sports also tend to support other less popular sports that do not bring in a lot of money on their own.

Student-athletes are the ones working hard out on the court and field. Coaches might have a big effect on a team, but it is up to the athletes to get it done. Coaches receive bonuses for breaking records, reaching the offseason, and winning the big games; the athletes receive none of it, writes Tyson Hartnett for HuffPost. Most profits from college athletics do not go toward academics. Instead, they go to the coaches, athletic directors, and some administrators, reports Edelman. Student-athletes do not need to receive huge salaries like their coaches; rather, they could still be paid a reasonable amount relative to how much the program makes. Scholarships often cover most of the student-athletes' books and room expenses, but even few extra hundred dollars per year could compensate for the lack of time these students have to earn spending money at a regular part-time job, argues Harnett.

It's also important to note that college student-athletes are not only a part of a sports team; they are a part of the college or university's advertising team. For example, the "Flutie effect" is used to describe a surge in college admission following a big sports win. It's named for Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie; he won the Heisman Trophy in 1984, and the College's admissions rose significantly in subsequent years-though the extent of Flutie's impact has been largely refuted by BC officials since then. Still, colleges and universities use their athletic success to promote their school and entice potential applicants. Student-athletes would be paid for this and all the additional benefits they provide for their schools.

A timeout of the regular season college football game between the University of Michigan at the University of Iowa
📸: Madisen Martinez

Why student-athletes should not get paid

In 2013, survey expert John Dennis found that 69% of the public is opposed to paying student-athletes. (This proposed payment would be in addition to the scholarships given in men's football and basketball programs.) If scholarships were taken out of the deal, and only salaries were given, then it would be more fair and affordable for the university, right? Wrong. If salaries were given, then these college student-athletes would have to pay taxes. Depending on the student-athlete's income, those taxes could be high enough to reduce what they earn until they can barely cover tuition, according to John R. Thelin in his article "Here's Why We Shouldn't Pay College Athletes."

Those who opposed paying college student-athletes say scholarships are the best option; there is no question as to what the scholarship money is going toward. Cash or a salary could be spent on wants rather than necessities, potentially leading the athletes into a debt they would not have with the benefit of a scholarship. Furthermore, those who debate against paying student-athletes say it would change the very nature of college athletics. College student-athletes are given a rare opportunity. It's difficult to earn a position on a college team. Though a dream for many, only about 7% of high school athletes move onto the bigger stage. Another 2% of these athletes reach the Division I level, reports Dave Anderson in his article " Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Not Be Paid."

If payments were involved, athletes would be given incentive to commit to the college or university with the highest offer. The next year, they may transfer to another school with an even higher offer. Before you know it, these college sports would be 100% a business. This new "business" could also lead to the downfall of other college programs. The money to pay athletes must come from somewhere, which might put the least-popular college programs at risk of being cut. That, in turn, can deprive other students of their chance to gain the education and experience at the college of their dreams, since their desired program will no longer be offered, says Anderson.

Finally, even though these college student-athletes may be playing at an advanced level, they still aren't playing professionally, Anderson notes. It is not their job to play sports; it is an extracurricular activity that is pursued while pursuing a higher education. Student-athletes are going to school to learn, and many are lucky enough to do so for reduced cost, given the often generous athletic scholarships. If these athletes were paid, it would change their motives as students. They are still in college-which is a privilege in itself-while pursuing their dreams of playing a sport.

What do you think?

Whether student-athletes should be paid is an ongoing debate often brought up during championship seasons, especially the college football playoffs and the basketball post-season. What's your view of this heated debate? Will a salary for college-athletes ever come to be? It's up to the NCAA to decide if they'll break away from their current model of collegiate sports, in which "the young men and women competing on the field or court are students first, athletes second."
Are you a hopeful student-athlete? Start exploring colleges and searching for scholarships for your sport on CollegeXpress now!
Like what you're reading?

Join the CollegeXpress community! Create a free account and we'll notify you about new articles, scholarship deadlines, and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Student-Athletes Be Paid to Play? Both Sides of the Debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The debate rages on: Should college athletes be paid to play their sport? Read our take on both sides of the argument and watch our accompanying video here!

# data[].attributes.body
This article was published 2/20/2018. Revised and updated. It packs down on the pros of the topic. But because of the .com it is not to trustworthy. It teaches on how the topic is good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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