# data[].attributes.body
Video 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About Gale In Context: Global Issues

Gale In Context: Global Issues offers international viewpoints on a broad spectrum of global issues, topics, and current events. Featured are hundreds of continuously updated issue and country portals that bring together a variety of specially selected, relevant sources for analysis of these issues. Rich multimedia - including podcasts, video, and interactive graphs - enhance each portal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Gale In Context: Global Issues Gale In Context: Global Issues offers international viewpoints on a broad spectrum of global issues, topics, and current events. Featured are hundreds of continuously updated issue and country portals that bring together a variety of specially selected, relevant sources for analysis of these issues.

# data[].attributes.body
Video 2

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

# data[].attributes.body
Video 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYdjwvtDpp4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCAA Sports Bring In $1 Billion A Year — Why Aren’t The Athletes Paid?

# data[].attributes.body
Video 4
https://www.statepress.com/article/2019/09/sp-opinion-college-athletes-should-not-be-paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NCAA should incentivize education, not paid employment

By

Photo by Angel Jimenez | The State PressAlex Coil | 09/29/2019 4:24pm
"Even worse, imagine athletes just coming to college for the money." Illustration published on Sunday, Sept. 29, 2019.

In the entirety of college football's 150-year history, college athletes have not been paid, and it needs to stay that way.

Earlier this month, California lawmakers approved a bill, that the governor has not yet signed, that would allow college athletes to profit off their name and likeness.

Tim Tebo w, a former college quarterback who won the Heisman, went on ESP N's First Take to share his belief that paying student athletes is the wrong approach.

Tebow is exactly right.

The phenomenon around paying college athletes and those driving the movement forward are forgetting the reason one goes to college: to get an education.

In an era striving for competitive balance, how would the NCAA keep from giving schools like Kentucky and Alabama even more of a competitive advantage than schools like Valparaiso and Florida Gulf Coast?

The issue gets complicated when taking into consideration how the salary difference between the quarterback on the football team and the third-string goalie on the lacrosse team gets decided.

Even worse, imagine athletes just coming to college for the money.

"You're going to see bigger schools use (paying athletes) as a recruiting advantage," said Marco Salas a redshirt freshman offensive lineman on the football team. "I think some people are going to come just to make money."

We call college athletes amateurs. Oxford's definition of amateur is "a person who engages in a pursuit, especially a sport, on an unpaid basis."The keyword there is unpaid.

The history of the word amateur dates back to the French, from the Latin, word "amator", which means lover, and also from "amare"which means to love.

Essentially, the word amateur is based on the word love. College athletes should be playing their sport for the love of the game, not the money that would be given to them if we decide to give them a salary.

Rules should not be made for the fractional minority, and in this instance only two percent of athletes play professional sports. The expected career span of that two percent is 10 years, three and a half years in the NFL.

An appalling 80 percent of retired NFL players go broke within three years of retirement, 60 percent in the NBA within five years.

This is why the NCAA and its member institutions should implement a "stay and learn" rule.

This rule should state that if athletes choose to come to college, they will get paid in scholarships that last the entirety of the educational process and the athlete must stay in school until they earn a degree, associates at minimum, in the area of study they choose. If they choose not to go to college and play professionally, that is the risk they take.

By not forcing athletes to play in college, the argument for paying them goes away.

"I'd value the education," Salas said. "That money (from going pro) is going to run out sometime, but the degree will always be there for you. You can use that in the long term."

We need to protect the future of these athletes by arming them with the free education they choose to pursue. These athletes need a backup plan in case of a career-ending injury or a more common issue, the lack of talent to play professionally.

Look at college athletics for what it is and should always be, a high-pressure learning environment and an avenue to earn an education. A much more fun extension of the classroom if you will. After all, they are called student-athletes.
Editor's note: The opinions presented in this column are the author's and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Reach the columnist at ancoil@asu.edu or follow @anc2018 on Twitter.

Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 500 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.

Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: Paying college athletes is not the answer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California lawmakers approved a bill that legalizes payment of college athletes. Instead of paying them, institutions need to focus on educating them.

# data[].attributes.body
Video 5
https://www.collegexpress.com/articles-and-advice/athletics/blog/should-college-student-athletes-be-paid-both-sides-debate/

# 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
Article 1
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/sports/a-fight-to-keep-college-athletes-from-the-pain-of-injury-costs.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Stanley Doughty sued the N.C.A.A. after his N.F.L. contract was canceled when his first physical revealed a cervical spine injury. Credit... Edmund D. Fountain for The New York Times

Kyle Hardrick lost his basketball scholarship at Oklahoma after he tore his meniscus.

Jason Whitehead nearly lost his football scholarship at Ohio University after he injured his neck.

Stanley Doughty left South Carolina only to discover he had a serious spine injury that ended his N.F.L. career after his first physical.

In the sprawling battle to reform the N.C.A.A., medical care for injured athletes has emerged as a key front, a particularly sensitive subject that has become more important with increased awareness about head injuries.

"It's the most important thing," said Ramogi Huma, the president of the National College Players Association. "We're talking about taking care of the players."

It is unusual for an athlete to lose a scholarship after an injury, but those worst-case scenarios are part of the reason Huma has helped lead a recent push to unionize Northwestern's scholarship football players. Under N.C.A.A. rules, players can still lose their scholarships after being hurt, often pay for their own insurance and are generally responsible for long-term health care for injuries sustained on the playing field.

Huma's goal is to ensure that current and former athletes never pay out of pocket for sports injuries. Some think a workers' compensation model could fill the gaps.

The N.C.A.A. previously placed limits on medical benefits, but it removed remaining restrictions on medical care last summer to give universities more freedom to provide care for athletes. Universities are required to certify that players have a primary health insurance policy, though the universities do not have to pay for it. The N.C.A.A. also has a catastrophic injury program that kicks in when expenses exceed $90,000.

"The floor is relatively low for what has to be provided," said John Infante, an N.C.A.A. compliance expert who runs the Bylaw Blog for AthleticScholarships.net. "You have a group that wants to raise it, and it comes down to whether schools, as the members of the N.C.A.A., want to do that."

Hardrick, a 6-foot-8 forward, committed to Oklahoma when he was 14. He arrived on campus in 2009, but at a practice that fall, a teammate, the nearly 300-pound Keith Gallon, fell on his right leg and injured his knee. Hardrick was told by team doctors that the injury was not serious, that with physical therapy he would be fine. He did not play in a game that year, and the pain continued the next season.

In January 2011, Hardrick's mother, Valerie, received the results of a magnetic resonance imaging test on her son's knee. The test showed a torn meniscus. Oklahoma disputed the findings and would not authorize surgery, even though, Valerie Hardrick said, the university had arranged for the exam. Hardrick had the operation using his family's insurance. Then, with his health in question, his scholarship was not renewed.

Kenny Mossman, Oklahoma's senior associate athletic director, wrote in a statement that Oklahoma relies on a "highly respected team of medical doctors" and that athletes who choose to seek an outside opinion do so, "by policy, at their own expense."

Hardrick's attempt to play at a junior college failed, and he was recently hired by Halliburton to work on an oil field. He still has severe knee pain and is responsible for all of his medical costs.

Hardrick is hardly the only athlete to fall through the cracks. Whitehead, a former safety at Ohio University, injured his neck when a teammate slammed him to the ground during a workout after the 2000 season. He and his teammate Jon Clark, who had sustained a knee injury, were deemed medically disqualified, meaning they would continue on scholarship but not count against the university's athletic limit. After the following school year, they were informed that their scholarships would not be renewed.

"They said it was a budget issue," Whitehead said.

After public pressure and a news conference, Ohio agreed to reinstate the tuition portion of the aid.

Doughty, a former defensive lineman at South Carolina, left the university in 2007, in his junior year, to pursue a professional career. He was not drafted but signed a contract with the Kansas City Chiefs. At his physical, he was told he had a cervical spine injury; one more big hit could lead to serious problems. Without surgical repair, the injury would affect him the rest of his life. His contract was canceled.

Doughty contacted South Carolina seeking medical assistance. After coaches initially said they might be able to help, they stopped returning his calls, he said. Doughty has since sued the N.C.A.A., arguing it breached its duty to protect football players. A South Carolina spokesman wrote that Doughty was aware of his injury and that he was provided appropriate medical care while he was a student-athlete.

A few universities grant multiple-year scholarships, which were instituted by the N.C.A.A. in 2012 to curb the practice of pulling scholarships. At the Final Four this year, the N.C.A.A. president, Mark Emmert, expressed support for four-year scholarships while speaking out against the union effort. On Thursday, the Division I board of directors endorsed changes to the N.C.A.A.'s governance model giving wealthier conferences more autonomy.

But a national mandate on health coverage, particularly long-term care, does not appear imminent. N.C.A.A. lawyers wrote in a recent court filing that the organization itself denied having "a legal duty to protect student-athletes, but affirmatively states that under the N.C.A.A. constitution, each member institution is responsible for protecting the health of its student-athletes."

Ellen J. Staurowsky, a professor at Drexel who is studying health care policy at universities in the five wealthiest conferences, said coverage varied widely. Some universities, she said, guarantee medical care only as long as an athlete is in school, while some provide it for an extra year.

"It's a completely patchwork system," she said.

California passed a law requiring universities that generate more than $10 million in media revenue from athletics to guarantee scholarships for players who are hurt, as well as assist athletes in premium payments and deductibles. It also requires those universities to provide medical care or insurance for athletic injuries for up to two years after an athlete leaves a university.

Some have suggested that the N.C.A.A. could start a fund for players with continuing medical issues, or that colleges could offer treatment at university-affiliated hospitals. When a regional director of the National Labor Relations Board last month deemed Northwestern's scholarship football players to be employees, a new wrinkle was introduced: workers' compensation.

"We're going to push ahead with the employee model and try to guarantee protections that way," Huma said.

Duke Niedringhaus, an insurance broker who has negotiated workers' compensation coverage deals for N.F.L. teams, said workers' compensation could be the only viable way to guarantee lifetime care for athletic injuries.

Niedringhaus calculated the cost to cover 85 scholarship football players at Northwestern to be about $1.5 million annually, through Illinois's assigned risk pool. The cost of the premium could change year to year based on the number and cost of claims, he said.

The N.F.L. provides health insurance for five years after retirement for players who play three seasons, and workers' compensation beyond that. The N.F.L. also recently agreed to create a $765 million fund for retired players dealing with the effects of head injuries, though a judge questioned whether that sum was sufficient. The N.C.A.A. is facing lawsuits over its handling of concussions as well.

As Amy Perko, the executive director of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, said, "the question is how all the new money will be used and how it will be used to ensure fair treatment of athletes."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Fight to Keep College Athletes From the Pain of Injury Costs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kyle Hardrick lost his basketball scholarship at Oklahoma after he tore his meniscus. Jason Whitehead nearly lost his football scholarship at Ohio University after he injured his neck. Stanley Doughty left South Carolina only to discover he had a serious spine injury that ended his N.F.L. career after his first physical.

# data[].attributes.headline
do they have to pay for their own injuries article 

# data[].attributes.subject
do they have to pay for their own injuries article 

# data[].attributes.body
Article 2
https://www.noodle.com/articles/when-student-athletes-get-injured-who-pays134

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chelsea Dixon reports on the state of medical insurance for student-athletes.

There's been a lot of talk in recent years about who should pay for the medical bills when college athletes are injured while participating in their sport.

Stanley Doughty lost a contract with the Kansas City Chiefs because of an undiagnosed spinal injury he'd received while playing for the University of South Carolina, but there was no incentive for the school to pay for the surgery he needed - they simply didn't have to.

NCAA member institutions are not required to provide long-term care for athletes who have exhausted their eligibility, graduated, or are no longer enrolled, as was the case for Doughty, who left the university 12 credits shy of graduating to play professionally.

Other student-athletes have lost their scholarships while they were still enrolled in college but unable to play because of injuries, like Patrick Courtney, who played football at North Carolina A & T State University. Courtney suffered from a hernia injury during training camp that required surgery. He was injured again when he rejoined his team on the field, and was forced to transfer when his scholarship was not renewed the following year.

Who Pays and What's Covered

Though National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) bylaws 3.2.4.8 (Certification of Insurance Coverage) and 3.2.4.8.1 (Amount of Coverage) require that student-athletes at member institutions have insurance for medical expenses related to athletic injuries, the schools are not required to cover what the insurance doesn't, leaving it to parents, guardians, or the students themselves to take out policies and pay out-of-pocket costs. Only once treatment for an injury exceeds $90,000 does the NCAA cover the cost under their Catastrophic Injury Insurance Program.

Student-athletes who participate in NCAA championship events, however, are fully covered by NCAA insurance policies through the Participant Accident Program. According to NCAA Director of Travel and Insurance Juanita Sheely, "Any injury during an NCAA championship event is covered by NCAA insurance policies from the very first dollar of expense to the last."

Exceptional student-athletes - those who are likely to be early draft picks for the NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, or WNBA - are permitted to purchase NCAA-sponsored disability insurance to protect against future loss of earnings as a professional athlete if they are approved by a program administrator. Loans are available to cover the cost of the insurance, which means that like the required basic coverage before the catastrophic insurance kicks in, student-athletes must foot the bill.

When it comes to coverage of student-athlete medical expenses, NCAA member institutions are allowed to determine their own policies and procedures, and are not required to pay for their student-athlete's medical expenses, though some do. For example, University of Louisville's Kevin Ware injured his leg during an NCAA tournament, and needed surgery and rehab to repair his leg. He was covered by both his family's and the school's insurance, and was not responsible for out-of-pocket expenses.

The University of Alabama also covers medical, dental, and rehabilitation expenses for student-athletes who receive sports-related injuries. When former player Tyrone Prothro fractured his tibia, an injury that was followed by a severe infection, the university paid for the 10 surgeries he needed.

Athletes who attend smaller schools, however, are often responsible for co-pays, deductibles, and other expenses, like at the University of Maine, where the students are responsible for up to $10,000 before school coverage kicks in.

For the past three years, the NCAA has permitted - but not required - Division I institutions to offer multiyear scholarships. But according to figures obtained by CBSSports.com, most schools continue to offer the majority of their scholarships as renewable one-year contracts, meaning that if athletes are injured or not healthy enough to play, they could lose their scholarships at the end of the year, and end up paying out of pocket for medical treatment.

How to Ease the Burden

Last year, the Big Ten Conference was the first to announce support for multiyear scholarships and improved medical insurance for student-athletes. When the organization finally does mandate enhanced benefits, it will potentially affect close to 9,500 student-athletes.

Effective this school year, the 7,000 sudent-athletes in the Pacific-12 Conference who receive scholarships will have four years of funding regardless of the sport a student plays, which can't be reduced or canceled for any reason so long as the student remains in good academic standing and fulfills the terms of the scholarship. Additionally, members of the conference must pay for medical expenses incurred from athletic injuries for at least four years after a student leaves or graduates from an institution.

In 2012, California passed SB-1525, Postsecondary education: Student Athlete Bill of Rights, which holds that colleges and universities generating more than $10,000,000 in media revenue from sports must guarantee athletic scholarships and pay the deductibles for student-athletes who suffer sports-related injuries. Furthermore, schools must pay for the cost of ongoing medical treatment for at least two years after a student has graduated or left the university.

The California legislation is a step in the right direction, though perhaps coverage should be extended to four years post-attendance, as has been mandated by the Pac-12 Conference - the same number of years student-athletes are eligible for competition. Some student-athletes receive injuries that take longer than four years to heal, if they ever heal at all. In order to provide comprehensive support for student-athletes, at the conclusion of four years, if they are unable to function at full capacity because of a sports-related injury during their undergraduate career, former players should have the opportunity to enroll in an insurance program provided by the academic institution.
Find more information and advice about college for student-athletes, and use Noodle to find universities that match your needs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When Student-Athletes Get Injured, Who Pays?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chelsea Dixon reports on the state of medical insurance for student-athletes. There's been a lot of talk in recent years about who should pay for the medical bills when college athletes are injured while participating in their sport.

# data[].attributes.headline
New Opportunities for students. article 

# data[].attributes.subject
New Opportunities for students. article 

# data[].attributes.body
Article 3
https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/conversqauq/will_the_ncaas_move_to_let_college_athletes_get_paid_endorsements_make_a_difference_3_questions_answered/0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will the NCAA's move to let college athletes get paid endorsements make a difference? 3 questions answered | The Conversation: An Independent Source of Analysis from Academic Researchers - Credo Reference

# data[].attributes.headline
AMount of injuries not paid by the schools. article

# data[].attributes.subject
AMount of injuries not paid by the schools. article

# data[].attributes.body
Article 4
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6448a2.ht

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sports-related injuries can have a substantial impact on the long-term health of student-athletes. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) monitors injuries among college student-athletes at member schools. In academic year 2013-14, a total of 1,113 member schools fielded 19,334 teams with 478,869 participating student-athletes in NCAA championship sports (i.e., sports with NCAA championship competition) ( 1). External researchers and CDC used information reported to the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (NCAA-ISP) by a sample of championship sports programs to summarize the estimated national cumulative and annual average numbers of injuries during the 5 academic years from 2009-10 through 2013-14. Analyses were restricted to injuries reported among student-athletes in 25 NCAA championship sports. During this period, 1,053,370 injuries were estimated to have occurred during an estimated 176.7 million athlete-exposures to potential injury (i.e., one athlete's participation in one competition or one practice). Injury incidence varied widely by sport. Among all sports, men's football accounted for the largest average annual estimated number of injuries (47,199) and the highest competition injury rate (39.9 per 1,000 athlete-exposures). Men's wrestling experienced the highest overall injury rate (13.1 per 1,000) and practice injury rate (10.2 per 1,000). Among women's sports, gymnastics had the highest overall injury rate (10.4 per 1,000) and practice injury rate (10.0 per 1,000), although soccer had the highest competition injury rate (17.2 per 1,000). More injuries were estimated to have occurred from practice than from competition for all sports, with the exception of men's ice hockey and baseball. However, injuries incurred during competition were somewhat more severe (e.g., requiring ≥7 days to return to full participation) than those acquired during practice. Multiple strategies are employed by NCAA and others to reduce the number of injuries in organized sports. These strategies include committees that recommend rule and policy changes based on surveillance data and education and awareness campaigns that target both athletes and coaches. Continued analysis of surveillance data will help to understand whether these strategies result in changes in the incidence and severity of college sports injuries.

During the 5 academic years from 2009-10 through 2013-14, injuries and athlete-exposures were voluntarily reported to NCAA-ISP by participating team athletic trainers, using a web-based platform. The number of teams participating in NCAA-ISP varied by sport and year ( 2). Overall, participation among teams for the study period ranged from a low of 0.7% in men's tennis to a high of 13.2% in men's ice hockey. Data were aggregated across all schools and across all available years for 12 men's championship sports and 13 women's championship sports. Variables examined included the sport, whether the injury occurred during practice or competition, and whether the player required emergency transport, surgery, or ≥7 days before return to full participation. Injuries were defined as those that occurred in an organized NCAA-approved practice or competition and required medical attention by a physician or athletic trainer ( 2). An athlete-exposure was defined as one student-athlete's participation in one practice or one competition. Injury rates were calculated by dividing the number of injuries by the number of athlete-exposures. Competition-to-practice injury rate ratios were calculated by dividing the competition injury rate by the practice injury rate. To create national estimates, each injury and exposure was assigned a sample weight on the basis of the inverse of the school selection probability, using stratifications based on sport, division, and academic year ( 3). The national estimates were then adjusted for potential underreporting ( 3). For example, over the 5-year study period, among the 123 team seasons of men's football from which data were acquired, 8,680 injuries from 899,321 athlete-exposures were reported by participating team athletic trainers. These data, when weighted and adjusted, produced national estimates of 235,993 injuries and 25,770,273 athlete-exposures (or estimated annual averages of 47,199 injuries and 5,154,055 athlete-exposures).

Among all 25 sports, an estimated 28,860,299 practice athlete-exposures and 6,472,952 competition athlete-exposures occurred each year. The 1,053,370 injuries estimated during the 5 academic years studied represented an average of 210,674 total injuries per year ( Table 1), among which, 134,498 (63.8%) occurred during practices. Overall, 21.9% of all injuries required ≥7 days before return to full participation (competition: 24.6%; practice: 20.5%) ( Figure 1). Among all injuries, those incurred during competition were somewhat more severe than those acquired during practice; overall, 4.0% of injuries required surgery (competition: 5.4%; practice: 3.1%), and 0.9% required emergency transport (competition: 1.4%; practice: 0.6%) ( Table 2). These data equated to estimated annual averages of 46,231 injuries that required ≥7 days before the athlete could return to full participation; 8,367 that required surgery; and 1,904 that required emergency transport. Approximately half of all injuries were diagnosed as sprains or strains (competition: 45.9%; practice: 45.0%) ( Table 1). Sprains (including anterior cruciate ligament tears) and strains also accounted for the largest proportions of injuries in competition and practice requiring ≥7 days before return to full participation, (52.1% and 47.8%, respectively) and the largest proportion of injuries requiring surgery (57.7% and 52.9%, respectively). In addition, sprains and strains accounted for the largest proportion of practice-related injuries requiring emergency transport (29.4%); however, during competition, the largest proportions of injuries requiring emergency transport were fractures, stress fractures, dislocations, and subluxations (25.8%), and concussions (22.0%).

Among men's sports, football accounted for the largest percentage of athlete-exposures (14.6% of all athlete-exposures and 31.2% of all male athlete-exposures), and football teams were estimated to have the highest number of injuries per year (47,199; 22.4% of all injuries and 36.3% of all male injuries). Football also had the highest competition injury rate (39.9 injuries per 1,000 athlete-exposures) and competition-to-practice rate ratio (6.8) ( Figure 2) and the third highest overall injury rate (9.2 per 1,000) ( Table 1). Overall, football accounted for the largest proportions of injuries requiring ≥7 days before return to full participation (26.2%), surgery (40.2%), and emergency transport (31.9%). Men's wrestling had the highest overall injury rate (13.1 per 1,000 athlete-exposures) and the highest practice injury rate (10.2 per 1,000). Swimming and diving had the lowest overall injury rate (1.7 per 1,000). The rates of injury during competition were higher than during practice for all men's sports. However, more injuries occurred in practices than in competitions for all men's sports except ice hockey and baseball.

Among women's sports, soccer accounted for the highest estimated number of injuries per year (15,113), and the highest competition injury rate (17.2 per 1,000); the competition-to-practice rate ratio was 3.1 (). Gymnastics had the highest overall injury rate (10.4 per 1,000 athlete-exposures) and practice injury rate (10.0 per 1,000). The lowest overall estimated injury rate (1.8 per 1000) was for swimming and diving. Injury rates were significantly higher during competitions than practices for all women's sports except volleyball, indoor track, and swimming and diving. Compared with practice injuries, a larger proportion of competition injuries required ≥7 days before return to full participation for eight of the 13 women's sports ( Figure 1). However, more injuries occurred in practices than in competitions for all women's sports because more than twice as many athlete-exposures each year occurred in practices compared with competition (55,670 versus 25,004).

Among men and women, overall injury rates were similar for soccer, swimming and diving, tennis, and both indoor and outdoor track and field. However, overall injury rates were significantly higher among men than women in basketball, ice hockey, and lacrosse. Overall injury rates were significantly higher among women than men in cross country.

Discussion

Men's football accounts for the most college sport injuries each year, as well as the largest proportions of injuries requiring ≥7 days before return to full participation, or requiring surgery or emergency transport. Thus, prevention efforts that focus on football will target the largest number of severe injuries. The large overall number of football-related injuries is attributable to football having the largest number of student-athletes (71,291 during the 2013-14 academic year) among all 25 reported NCAA sports (16.1%) ( 2). Although wrestling had the highest overall injury rate among all 25 reported NCAA sports, the number of student-athlete wrestlers was much smaller (6,982). At the same time, the competition injury rates in wrestling and football were nearly equivalent, although the practice injury rate in wrestling was higher than that in football. Among women's sports, gymnastics had the highest rate of injury each year, whereas soccer contributed the largest number of injuries. Many of these data are consistent with earlier reports and can be used to guide resource allocation decisions and research to identify specific risk factors or to evaluate prevention measures ( 4). It is also important to note that the injury rates reported from these data are higher than those reported from NCAA-ISP before 2004-05 ( 4) because, unlike previous estimates, rates since the 2009-10 academic year have included injuries requiring <1 day before return to full participation.

The relationship between injury numbers and rates in practice and competition is similar to previous findings ( 4). Competition injury rates were higher than practice injury rates, and more than five-fold higher for men's football and ice hockey. This difference might be attributable to a higher intensity of activity during competitions compared with practices; in most sports, the proportion of injuries requiring ≥7 days before return to full participation was higher in competitions than in practices. However, a larger number of injuries occurred during practices than competition, because there were nearly 4.5 times as many practice athlete-exposures as competition athlete-exposures. Approximately one in five practice injuries required ≥7 days before return to full participation. Major injuries, such as concussion or those resulting in surgery or emergency transport, occurred commonly in both competition and practice. Injury prevention strategies that target not only competition, but also the more controlled practice environment, might provide additional opportunities to reduce injury incidence.

The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, not all sports have athletic trainers present at every practice; therefore, practice and overall injury rates might be underreported and thus underestimated in certain sports. Second, these data are descriptive and cannot be used to ascertain reasons for the various injury rates. Third, multiple years of data were required to be combined to provide stable annual estimates. For methodologic reasons, it cannot be ascertained whether rates have changed over time. Additional years of injury surveillance will aid detection of changes in injury incidence and severity. Finally, although weights were used to calculate national rate estimates, these data are drawn from reports from participating teams, which amounts to a convenience sample and not a random sample. Thus, these data might not be generalizable to all teams in all NCAA member schools.

Sports injury data, such as those collected by NCAA-ISP, have been used to describe the incidence of injury, develop and evaluate various rule and policy changes (e.g., changing football kickoff and touchback yard lines to reduce injuries*), guide resource allocation, and focus injury prevention efforts ( 2, 4- 10). NCAA-ISP data are now available online to researchers to aid in their analyses of sports injuries and in their development of strategies for injury prevention.†

1Datalys Center for Sports Injury Research and Prevention, Indianapolis, Indiana; 2University of North Carolina Injury Prevention Research Center, Chapel Hill; 3State Health Registry of Iowa, Iowa City; 4University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland; 5Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.

Corresponding author: Thomas P. Dompier, tdompier@datalyscenter.org, 317-275-3664.

References

1. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Sports sponsorship and participation rates. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association; 2014. Available at http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/sports-sponsorship-and-participation-research.

2. Kerr ZY, Dompier TP, Snook EM, et al. National collegiate athletic association injury surveillance system: review of methods for 2004-2005 through 2013-2014 data collection. J Athl Train 2014;49:552-60.

3. Kucera KL, Marshall SW, Bell DR, DiStefano MJ, Goerger CP, Oyama S. Validity of soccer injury data from the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Injury Surveillance System. J Athl Train 2011;46:489-99.

4. Hootman JM, Dick R, Agel J. Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: summary and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives. J Athl Train 2007;42:311-9.

5. Gilchrist J, Mandelbaum B, Melancon H, et al. A randomized controlled trial to prevent non-contact ACL injury in female collegiate soccer players. Am J Sports Med 2008;36:1476-83.

6. Reider B. An ounce of prevention. Am J Sports Med 2004;32:1383-4.

7. Dick R, Putukian M, Agel J, Evans TA, Marshall SW. Descriptive epidemiology of collegiate women's soccer injuries: National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System, 1988-1989 through 2002-2003. J Athl Train 2007;42:278-85.

8. Marshall SW, Covassin T, Dick R, Nassar LG, Agel J. Descriptive epidemiology of collegiate women's gymnastics injuries: National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System, 1988-1989 through 2003-2004. J Athl Train 2007;42:234-40.

9. Yard EE, Comstock RD. Compliance with return to play guidelines following concussion in US high school athletes, 2005-2008. Brain Inj 2009;23:888-98.

10. Parker EM, Gilchrist J, Schuster D, Lee R, Sarmiento K. Reach and knowledge change among coaches and other participants of the online course: "concussion in sports: what you need to know." J Head Trauma Rehabil 2015;30:198-206.

Summary
What is already known on this topic?

The risk for injury to college athletes varies by the sport played, the sex of the athlete, and whether the athlete is engaged in practice or competition.

What is added by this report?

Data from the National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance Program indicate that, among men's sports, the highest injury rates are in football and wrestling. For women, the highest injury rates are in soccer and gymnastics. Estimated injury rates are higher during competition than during practice. However, the majority of injuries overall and within most sports occur during practices because they are conducted more frequently than competitions.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Injury prevention strategies that target practices as well as competitions might provide additional opportunities for reduction in injury incidence. Injury surveillance data can be used to compare injury incidence across sports, develop and evaluate rule and policy changes, and focus injury prevention research and programs. Continual analysis of surveillance data will help to understand changes in the incidence and severity of college sports injuries.

Alternate Text: The figure above is a bar chart showing percentages of competition and practice injuries requiring ≥7 days before return to full participation, by 25 championship sports in the United States for 5 academic years, 2009-10 through 2013-14.

Alternate Text: The figure above is a bar chart showing competition and practice injury rates per 1,000 athlete-exposures and competition/practice rate ratios, by 25 championship sports in the United States for 5 academic years, 2009-10 through 2013-14.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
centers for disease control and prevention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national notifiable diseases surveillance system (nndss)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
council of state and territorial epidemiologists (cste)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College Sports-Related Injuries - United States, 2009-10 Through 2013-14 Academic Years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Series is prepared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Often called 'the Voice of CDC,' the MMWR series is the agency's primary vehicle for scientific publication of timely, reliable, authoritative, accurate, objective, and useful public health information and recommendations.

# data[].attributes.body
Article 5
https://inside.ewu.edu/engl201-20/college-athletes-should-not-be-paid/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College Athletes Should Not be Paid.

The intensity of the argument to pay college athletes has escalated in the past few years. Picture a world where every college athlete was paid by their schools to play. The controversy it would have on an organization like the NCAA. There are many questions regarding the benefits of paying college athletes and to not. Questions like: Where would the money even come from? Or even, do they get paid the same for the different sports?

There is no question that there are a few cons to paying college athletes. Mostly all college athletes are on scholarships. They help pay for a student's schooling while they play the sport they play. If scholarships were taken out of the idea, and only salaries were handed out, then you would think it would be more affordable, Right? Wrong. If they gave students salaries, then it would lead to them paying taxes.

After that, depending on the athlete, taxes could be high enough to the point where they don't earn anything and they cannot pay tuition. Payments would not be such a good idea. Athletes would be forced to commit to the highest bidding college or universities. Eventually, they would transfer the next year due to a higher offer which would be a big financial step for those schools. A scholarship is the best fit for college athletes, buying what they need instead of what they want.

Before you know it, college sports will be 100% a business. That being said, that "business" could lead to a decline in the other college programs. The money from the college sports comes from these said programs which means the least popular programs would unfortunately get the boot. That could potentially deprive students of a chance to gain the proper education and experience at the college they attend, since their necessary program is cut. If that ever happened, it would be even harder for non-athletic students to get the proper care for their desired major.

Those who usually debate against paying college athletes say it would change the nature of college athletics. Realistically, playing sports in college is really hard to do. Even though there are hundreds of players on a football field, does not mean they eased their way there. And that goes for any sport, you have to be able to participate at a high level than high school. It is difficult to earn a position on a team. It is a dream many have to make it pro, sport analyst Dave Anderson states "about 7% of high school athletes move to the next level. Another 2% of these athletes reach the Division 1 level."

For college athletes, it is not just about playing the sport. The key word in "college athletes" is college. These students are expected to achieve good grades in order to remain eligible to play along with earning a degree. If a student athlete does not maintain the proper grades in their classes then it could have an effect on play along with handling the discussion on an ideal scholarship. Though the educational attainment of college athletes has become a major concern in the united states, there has been little research on the relationship between participation in college sports and educational attainment. We studied more than two thousand athletes over 10 years at a major western university and found that athletes were less prepared for college and achieved less academically in college than the general student population.

There are others such as parents of these student athletes and fans of these different sports that think otherwise on the debate. A good reason for college athletes to be paid is that it provides athletes to get good exposure. Every Saturday there are a bunch of college football games, top performers get reward with awards like the player of the week, and that goes for all sports. Exposure is a big thing in sports but some also agree it should be saved for the professional level like the NFL or the NBA. That exposure can be a distraction for college athletes. Some players can even lose concentration on play as they are attached to the media which is why they should not be paid

In Conclusion, it should be noted that it would be a difficult process in trying to pay college athletes. The NCAA should not be discredited on one issue due to the mishandling of others. It is always the student athlete's responsibility to perform at an expected level while also being a college student. With that being said, college athletes should not be paid is a valid argument that continues to be discussed today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College Athletes Should Not be Paid. The intensity of the argument to pay college athletes has escalated in the past few years. Picture a world where every college athlete was paid by their schools to play. The controversy it would have on an organization like the NCAA.

# data[].attributes.body
Article 6
https://vittana.org/14-should-college-athletes-be-paid-pros-and-cons

# 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
Image 3

# data[].attributes.body
Article 7
https://papyrus.greenville.edu/2019/11/college-athletes-should-get-paid/

# 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
Picture 1

# data[].attributes.body
Picture 2

# data[].attributes.headline
Poll on whether they should be paid or not.

# data[].attributes.subject
Poll on whether they should be paid or not.

# data[].attributes.body
Picture 4

# data[].attributes.headline
How much the coaches get paid and how much the students who put all that hard work make. 

# data[].attributes.subject
How much the coaches get paid and how much the students who put all that hard work make. 

# data[].attributes.body
Picture 5