# data[].attributes.body
C- November 20, 2019
R- yes because it goes how student athletes should get endorsements
A- Justin Reyes/ Edu it is an college site
A- Yes 1 grammar error
P- Teach/inform

# 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.body
C- June 1, 2018
R- yes it goes with athletes making money with taking pictures for espn or other sports papers
A- Matthew Brook/ org  usually they are reliable sources
A- no
P- Teach/inform

# 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.body
C- March 29, 2017
R- Yes it gives pros and cons on students getting paid
A- Malcolm Lemmons, It is an .com but there was few errors and I read it and it seems reliable
A- 1 grammar and 1 spelling error
P- Teach/inform

# 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
C- October 2, 2019
R- Yes tells me how students in California colleges get endorsement
A- David k. Li with the Daily News article it is an .com but it is a college news station for student
A- Yes 1 grammar error
P- Teach/inform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(by David K. Li, NBC News) - [Defying the NCAA, California's governor signed a first-in-the-nation law Monday that will let college athletes hire agents and make money from endorsements - a move that could upend amateur sports in the U.S. and trigger a legal challenge.].

The legislation, which takes effect in 2023, allows student-athletes to sign endorsement deals and prohibits the governing body of college sports, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and the schools from [revoking scholarships or] banning those compensated athletes.

NCAA rules strictly prohibit athletes from profiting in any way from their sports, and the law would still bar schools from directly paying athletes.

"Colleges reap billions from student athletes but block them from earning a single dollar. That's a bankrupt model," Gov. Newsom tweeted after signing the bill.

The NCAA acknowledged in a statement Monday that its current regulations on amateurism will need to change, but said California's new law won't help.

"As a membership organization, the NCAA agrees changes are needed to continue to support student-athletes but improvement needs to happen on a national level through the NCAA's rules-making process," the governing body said. ...

Newsom signed the bill while appearing on NBA icon LeBron James' HBO show, "The Shop: Uninterrupted." [James' 14-year-old son is a closely watched basketball prospect in Los Angeles and will be 18 when the measure takes effect.]

The governor predicted it would prompt dozens of other states to pass similar legislation and force the NCAA's hand.

"It's going to change college sports for the better by having now the interests finally of the athletes on par with the interests of the institutions," Newsom said. "Now we're re-balancing that power arrangement.

James, who went pro straight out of high school, urged the NCAA to come to the bargaining table and find a way to compensate athletes who generate millions of dollars, especially in football and basketball.

...While the NCAA is the governing body of college sports, membership is voluntary. So conceivably, if schools are forced out of competition by the NCAA, they could simply opt out to form their own new leagues.

Lisa Masteralexis, who teaches sports management at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said the upcoming battle on this issue could embolden high-revenue, so-called "Power 5" leagues - the Big Ten, Southeastern, Pacific-12 [see "Background" below], Big 12 and Atlantic Coast Conferences - to create their own athlete compensation packages.

And if they did so, those big-money schools and leagues could break away on their own, bumping the NCAA from the business of big-time college sports altogether.

"The power conferences have leverage," Masteralexis told NBC News shortly after Newsom signed the bill. "If you look at the Power 5 conferences, they have enough money and media attention, some with their own TV networks, they can drive the bus."

Legislation signed Monday by Newsom seemed to fall in line with the public's general view of compensating college athletes.

A Morning Consult poll published this past spring showed that Americans oppose direct school-to-athlete pay, 45 percent to 32 percent.

But when asked if student-athletes should be able to sign deals with brands, respondents said yes by 47 percent to 35 percent.

And asked if college athletes should be allowed to profit off their names or images on video games and other products, respondents again said yes by 52 percent to 31 percent.

The Golden State is home to dozens of schools that play top-flight Division I sports, including Pacific-12 Conference institutions such as the University of Southern California, Stanford University, the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of California, Berkeley.
[The NCAA, a non-profit organization, reported $1.1 billion in revenue in 2017. It's president Mark Emmert received a salary of $2.4 million in 2016]. Published at NBCNews .com on September 30, 2019. Reprinted here for educational purposes only. May not be reproduced on other websites without permission from NBC.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CA law allows college athletes to be paid for endorsements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(by David K. Li, NBC News) - [Defying the NCAA, California's governor signed a first-in-the-nation law Monday that will let college athletes hire agents and make money from endorsements - a move that could upend amateur sports in the U.S. and trigger a legal challenge.].

# data[].attributes.body
C- October 30, 2019
R- Yes because it is telling why students should not earn money
A- Mary Louise Kelly/.org and .orgs are reliable
A- Yes 1 spelling error
P- Teach/inform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NPR's Mary Louise Kelly speaks with Ekow Yankah, author of The New Yorker essay, "Why N.C.A.A. Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid," about the NCAA's decision to allow college athletes to earn compensation.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

The NCAA makes close to a billion dollars in revenue each school year, but college players see none of that money. Now that might change. Yesterday, the NCAA's Board of Governors voted to permit student-athletes to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness. Now, some see this as addressing an unfair practice of exploitative behavior by the NCAA. Others see this as a lousy idea.

Here to discuss is Ekow Yankah. He's a professor at Cardozo School of Law. He has written about this, an essay in The New Yorker back in 2015 titled "Why NCAA Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid." He joins me now from London.

Welcome to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.

EKOW YANKAH: Thank you for having me.

KELLY: What did you make of this announcement yesterday?

YANKAH: Like most people, we're all sort of waiting to see what the announcement means. The NCAA often tries to do the vaguely right thing when it has absolutely no other choice. So I take it that this is a capitulation of what they see coming down the pike in terms of a slew of laws that are passing from state to state and threatened federal action.

KELLY: But I gather you think this is a lousy idea. You're in the lousy idea camp. How come?

YANKAH: Well, I'm torn about the name and likeness issue, which is slightly different than paying the athletes. But at bottom, the reason I'm concerned is because I think this will be awfully hard to distinguish from salaries. I consistently worry about the continued professionalization of college athletics.

Look; there's no question that the current system is deeply exploitative and deeply problematic. I guess my baseline worry is many people - I think people in good faith - see the exploitation, and they say the answer is to pay these young athletes some amount of money while they're playing football or basketball. I look, and I say the answer is to make sure that these young men - and with the revenue generated in sports, it's typically young men - that they get the thing that they were promised that was of value. That is to say they get a college degree that was of value.

And one of the things I worry about is how many of, at least the listeners to NPR, those who have opportunity and resources - how many of them would trade a college degree for their child for three years of their child being paid in college? I doubt that's a trade that your listeners would make. Those are not the dreams I have for my children.

KELLY: So in your view, should anything change in the current system?

YANKAH: Yeah. I think everybody agrees that the current system needs to be changed and that the corruption of the current system is untenable and, indeed, deeply racially scarred. I'm not interested in whether or not even my beloved Wolverines crank out three or four professionals a year. I'm interested in universities that can crank out generations of black lawyers and doctors and engineers.

It seems to me that the best way to make sure that we are actually serving these young men is to do our best to support and create a true minor league system.

KELLY: Similar to the way it works in Europe already.

YANKAH: Similar to the way it works in Europe. Young kids who want to play for Manchester United are playing in soccer camps from when they're young. Every year, they get cut down. But the ones who dream of playing on the big stage pursue through the minor league system - and similar to the way it works in baseball and, by the way, similar to the way it works in hockey in the United States.

KELLY: I want to make this personal. You played soccer a little bit in college. New college athlete - would you have wanted to get paid?

YANKAH: Maybe in this way I'm a little bit pushed the other way. I played very briefly when Michigan was a club team. In order to keep playing, I would've had to pay money to play. I was working a full-time job in college on top of scholarships. I would've been thrilled to be able to play, just not to pay. And so in this way, I am one of the people who truly thinks that sports are actually a part of an education. You know, we don't think of the dancers as not students, and we don't think of the chess players as not students.

KELLY: The chess team isn't bringing in a billion dollars every year, though.

YANKAH: No, that's true. That's absolutely right. And I think, you know, that's a concern. On the other hand, if there was a true professional league where the students who wanted to make their money could go make their money, then the university could look the student-athletes in the eye and be quite clear that the revenue generation was more about the university than any particular student-athlete. That is to say if your skills are the kind for which you can get paid, you can go to the minor league and get paid.

KELLY: That's Ekow Yankah. He is a professor at Cardozo School of Law, and he wrote an essay for The New Yorker titled "Why NCAA Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid."

Ekow Yankah, thanks.

YANKAH: Thank you for having me.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Argument For Not Allowing College Athletes To Earn Compensation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NPR's Mary Louise Kelly speaks with Ekow Yankah, author of The New Yorker essay, "Why N.C.A.A. Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid," about the NCAA's decision to allow college athletes to earn compensation.

# data[].attributes.body
C- October 2, 2019
R- Yes it was a picture from a website a use
A- David k, Li Daily news article
A- N/A
P- Inform

# data[].attributes.body
C- 2018
R- yes by doing how athletes profits go right to the college
A- Jared Harris/.net
A- N/A
P- Inform

# data[].attributes.body
C- March 24, 2015
R- Yes it is fighting why athletes should get paid
A- CNBC it is a news station and usually world new station are reliable
A- No
P- Teach/Inform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ed O'Bannon, former UCLA basketball star, shares his support for compensation for student athletes when their likeness is used.

# data[].attributes.body
C- March 17, 2016
R- Yes talks about if college athletes would get paid and how much they would get paid
A- PBS newshour it is a world news station
A- No
Teach/Inform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
And maybe even getting paid extra in cash.

And so, in the end, what's happened to the lawsuits? Well, EA Sports actually settled for roughly $60 million, with thousands of players, past and present, getting, on average, about $1,600 each, the money finally awarded just this week.

In 2014, the court ruled the NCAA's refusal to pay players was an antitrust violation, and also ordered up to $5,000 per student athlete be put in trust for using their likenesses. But the NCAA appealed, and the money award was reversed.

And so, this Tuesday, O'Bannon's lawyers asked the Supreme Court to review the case.

In Henderson, Nevada, this is economics correspondent Paul Solman for the "PBS NewsHour."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
March Madness means a huge payday for coaches, colleges, networks and advertisers -- everyone except the athletes themselves. Although television rights for the NCAA tournament this year alone brought in nearly a billion dollars, the players won't see a penny, and many are unhappy with the situation.

# data[].attributes.body
C- September 27, 2017
R- Yes it is showing football making money for the college
A- Kamal Walker it is an .com but I read the article it was in and it seems reliable
A- N/A
P- Inform

# data[].attributes.body
C- March 29, 2017
R- Yes showing college athletes making money for the college
A- Malcolm Lemmons, read the rest of the article it was in and it was a reliable source
A- N/A
P- Inform

# data[].attributes.body
C- May 10, 2019
R-Yes because it is showing about athletes getting paid
A- Theme Country, .com but i read the article it was in and there was minimum grammar and spelling error
A- N/A
P- Inform