# data[].attributes.body
The picture was originally made January 13, 2012. It has been published in multiple articles. The information given from this image does relate to my topic and agrees with my claim. John Cole is the published. It reveals that he thinks NCAA just keeps the money to themselves and tries to act surprised players don't get paid. The cartoon's purpose is to entertain people.

# data[].attributes.body
The picture was made October 12, 2014. It has been published in multiple articles. The image does relate to my topic and it agrees with my claim. John Luckovich is the publisher. It reveals that he thinks the NCAA is hogging all the money to themselves instead of paying college athletes. This cartoon's purpose is to entertain but at the same time inform the viewer that the NCAA is hogging all the money for themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
The video was made on March 24, 2019. It has not been revised or updated. It does relate to my topic and it agrees with my topic. They question why NCAA athletes aren't paid and go into detail on why they should. The author is Business Insider. It reveals they have gone very deep into their reason as to why NCAA athletes should be paid. The purpose is to inform and persuade.

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

# data[].attributes.body
The video was made on January 20, 2016. It has not been revised or updated. It relates to my topic as Colin Cowherd also agrees with my topic. Colin Cowherd explains why the NCAA should pay their athletes. The author is Colin Cowherd. It reveals he strongly believes college athletes should be getting paid. The purpose is to inform, entertain, and persuade the viewer to believing college athletes should be paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's why the NCAA should pay college football players | THE HERD

# data[].attributes.body
The picture was originally made December 17, 2011. It has been published once. The information does relate to my topic, it agrees with my claim.  John Cole is the publisher. It reveals that he agrees with college athletes being paid. The cartoon's purpose is to entertain and persuade people about whether or not college athletes should get paid.

# data[].attributes.body
The picture was originally made on March 3, 2017. It has been published few times in other articles. The information it gives does relate to my topic. As it does agree with my claim. The writer is Cagle Cartoons. This reveals that they think college athletes should be getting paid for all the hard work they do and the college players know it too. This is informing and entertaining people on how hard players work and still do not get paid.

# data[].attributes.body
The picture was originally made in 2014. No edits have been made. It has been published multiple times. The information does relate to my topic. It disagrees with my claim, as it shows it believes the money should stay away from the players. The writer is Adam Zyglis. It reveals that Adam believes the players should not get paid, and the money should go to the NCAA. This cartoon is supposed to depict that college players should not get paid.

# data[].attributes.body
The article was published on September 11, 2019. This article has not been revised. The article gets the opinions from college students whether or not athletes should get paid, as it relates to my topic, the students also agree with my claim. It is from CNBC and was written by Abigail Hess. There are no grammar or spelling errors in this article. The article is meant to inform the readers about the opinions of college students.

# data[].attributes.body
The article I am using was published on July 18, 2016. This article has not been revised. The article being used explains why college athletes shouldn't get paid and that it would bring problems to payments. It is from Odyssey and the writer is Maurice Jones. The article is supposed to persuade the reader that college athletes shouldn't get paid. There are no spelling or grammar errors. Its purpose is to inform readers about why athletes should not be paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Throughout the years big name college athletes have been trying to get six-digit numbers in their bank account before making it to the pros. What they do not understand is that college is not a place of work and that it is meant to further education for a future career. Also, no college, big or small, has enough money to pay them. They have to pay to build facilities, pay coaches, give scholarships, and pay athletic directors to make sure that the school has the best chance of winning. Despite the fact that most athletes do not have money to get by while they are in college, schools do not gain enough revenue back from the money that they put into their sports programs. They are technically already paid with a free education due to their scholarship, and all of the different sports would not be able to be paid the same amount.

If colleges were to pay their athletes, there would not be as much money to go around for any of the other things like the facilities or the coaches. Not only do colleges not have enough money, but it would also defeat the purpose of going to school. If athletes were to start getting paid, it would give people a reason to talk about paying other students in the school. "If we pay the athletes maybe we should also do it for the first violinist in the school orchestra, or the lead actor in theatrical productions, and perhaps popular professors should allocate course enrollment slots to those students who bid the highest" according to Andrew Zimbalist of theatlantic.com. It would also make the cost of college more expensive. The money would have to come from somewhere. That would just make it harder for a regular student to attend a college. According to star.txstate.edu, it would be really unfair to the other students. Some if not all college athletes are already on scholarships, so why should they be paid like they are professionals? Many college athletes argue that since they do not have time to get jobs that they should be paid by the university so that they can have extra money to spend. What they do not realize is that the average college student is middle class and has to pay their way through school. It is not that since they do not play a sport they have money to spend. These students would kill to have their school paid for and all they would have to worry about is their grades.

It would really ruin the culture of college sports. College students love college sports because the athletes are students just like they are. The athletes are in classes and are seen on campus. They are a part of the school's community. Money would separate the athletes from the student body. It would make them seem like they are the most important people at the school.

Another thing is that some athletes do not stay in school the four years to earn their degrees, so they will take up classroom space for one or two years and it is free. Some athletes don't even deserve the education that they are being given. For example, the valedictorian of my high school class really wanted to go to Georgetown. She got in, but tuition was over $75,000 a year, yet there are athletes that go to this school for free and probably do not have the grades to even be there. Former NBA star Allen Iverson who barely graduated high school and will tell you himself that he hated school, got to go to Georgetown for free, and he only stayed for one year.

Forbes.com was also able to bring up some good points. Football and basketball are the two sports that most people think of when it comes to athletes being paid. What about the other sports? Athletes participate in sports like soccer, tennis, golf, baseball, volleyball, track and field. They work just as hard as football and basketball players, but just because they do not generate as much money they have to be treated differently than the people that work out in the same facilities as they do. Even if it were possible for athletes to be paid they should all be paid the same. Some people claim that football and men's basketball should be the only sports to be paid because those are the sports that generate the bulk of the revenue. This would be violating the federal Title IX law. This law stipulates equal compensation for male and female athletes. Besides the issue of paying the participants of every sport, there is also the issue of everyone being paid - should you just pay your elite athletes or the whole team? How much would you pay players? Is it one set amount for every athlete, or will there be pro-like contracts? If you let athletes get paid for endorsements, will it give some programs unfair advantages? If someone plays for a school like Alabama they are more likely to get an endorsement than if they were playing for a school like Tulsa. It is the same issue with allowing profit off merchandise sold with their name or number. Playing for Florida would give a better opportunity to make a profit off of merchandise than playing for Western Michigan.

Also, imagine a coach trying to discipline a college player if they were paid. Even if they know they messed up all they would care about is the money. Paying them would affect their character and it would affect the way they act if they were to go out in the real world and play professionally. College teaches you about life and tells you to be disciplined. It is hard to be disciplined when you are getting paid a lot of money.

One thing that may surprise the reader of this paper is that most colleges, even the big name ones, do not even make the money back that they put into their sports programs. Despite all the tickets, merchandise, and memorabilia that these big name universities sell, they cannot break even. According to theatlantic.com, the average FBS athletic program ran a $9.44 million operating deficit. This brings up the question where would the money come from?

While researching on forbes.com only 14 athletic programs are generating a profit without having to rely on institutional support like student fees. Ohio state university needs over $22 million from the booster club in order to balance. OSU could ask the boosters for money to pay the players, but what would a school like Western Kentucky do? They already spend 5.6 million on grants-in-aid and it takes 8.2 million from the university to balance their budget. How would they pay their players?

One thing that shocked me while I was doing research on thestate.com was that the athletes that are basically impoverished receive a federal supplement every semester. It is called Pell Grant money. Qualified college athletes receive up to $5,645 put in their bank accounts a year. The athlete can choose to spend this money in any way they want. So it is pretty much up to them to be smart with it and not blow it on something stupid. This money is meant to help athletes from impoverished backgrounds live like average students without hardship.

Dawn Staley, the South Carolina women's basketball coach grew up in the Philadelphia projects. She earned a full scholarship to Virginia where she qualified for the maximum amount of Pell Grant money. "Things came up. I didn't have much when I went to school. When you see other people with things, you're a kid, you want them. If you don't have them, you don't feel like you're having the full experience of being in college." Staley's example from two decades ago still applies today. The athletes that need it the most are taken care of through Pell Grants. They do not need the extra money. These grants are distributed based on the annual income of an athlete's family. The lower the income the higher the grant.

Most fans of college sports do not know that the NCAA allows for additional help to athletes through the student athlete opportunity fund. It is intended to provide direct benefits to student athletes or their families as determined by conference officers. Some of the benefits include non-athletics related health expenses that are not covered by an athlete's insurance plan, travel expenses for an athlete to attend funerals or family emergencies, and a $200 annual clothing allowance, as long as Pell Grants are available.

A big reason college athletes should not be paid is simply because they are not professionals. College athletes are people that are trying to get to the pros and therefore, are not paid because they have not made it yet. Since these players are in college, they should never be paid to play their sport. College sports are just like another class. College students pick something that they want to major in so that they can learn and start a career. College sports should be treated the same way. "I am a broadcast journalism major and no one pays me to set up interviews, anchor a show or broadcast on the college radio station, U92 FM. The reason why no one pays me to do any of that is because I am learning my field in order to get paid when I get a job. In college sports you play to get to the pros, not to earn a paycheck as a student." says Josh Cooper of bdlsports.net. What people forget about college athletes is that they are student athletes. The word student comes before athlete. No one in college gets paid to get an A+ or pass an important test. College is a place where you learn to grow up and how to manage your life.

The biggest reason why college athletes should not be paid is that having a scholarship is technically a form of pay. No, the athlete does not get that money to spend on whatever they want, but the most important thing is paid for. The average college student would kill to have their school already paid for. Not only does a college athlete have a chance to go pro in a sport but they have a chance to finish a degree, which can be used if the pros do not go as planned.

While reading an article by John Rocker from wind.com I discovered that college athletes also have the opportunity to meet the boosters of the schools that they play for. A school's boosters club is made up of alumni that give a lot of money to the school. They most likely own their own businesses. This is another job opportunity for an athlete. If the pros do not work out the booster could remember the athlete's buzzer beater against their rival and give them a job.

In closing, there are too many questions that need to be answered and too many issues that would arise from college athletes getting paid. A college athlete has a ton of privileges and opportunities. There is no reason why they should be paid. Their school is free, they have a chance of getting a job if the pros don't work out and there is just not enough money to go around.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Throughout the years big name college athletes have been trying to get six-digit numbers in their bank account before making it to the pros. What they do not understand is that college is not a place of work and that it is meant to further education for a future career.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was made on May 29, 2019. This article has not been revised. The article explains the pros and cons of college athletes getting paid or not. The article is from SmartAsset. The author is Tiffany Patterson. This article shows that the author remains neutral with the decision of college athletes getting paid or not. The article is  supposed to inform readers about the pros and cons about paying college athletes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Athletes Be Paid? - SmartAsset

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elite professional athletes regularly draw salaries reaching into the millions. The minimum annual salary for players in the four major sports leagues is well into the six-figure range, and it’s not uncommon for star players to receive multi-year contracts worth more than $100 million. If you’re a c…

# data[].attributes.body
The article I am using was published on April 4, 2011. The article has not been revised. The article is used to explain why college athletes should be getting paid or not and it agrees with my claim. It is from Bleacher Report and was written by Brennan Thomas. The article is meant to inform and persuade the reader about college athletes being paid or not and why they should be paid. There are no grammar or spelling errors.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
The article I'm using was made in April 4, 2016. The article has been revised recently, 2019. The article explains valid points to why college athletes should be getting paid. The article is from The Perspective, written by Elad De Piccioto. The article was created to persuade the reader that college players should be getting paid. There are no grammar or spelling errors in this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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