# data[].attributes.body
The flawless article, published on October 3, 2019, and written by Alexia Campbell, discusses California's laws regarding college athletes and their payment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California is shaking up the big business of college sports.

Earlier this week, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that would let college athletes make money from endorsement deals for the first time. Right now, they're the only ones involved in the $14 billion industry who aren't cashing in.

The new law, which doesn't go into effect until 2023, is meant to pressure the National Collegiate Athletic Association to change its rules before then. The NCAA is still clinging to its long-held view that college athletes should spend their time earning a degree for playing sports, not making money.

But times have changed. In the past 20 years, college sports has ballooned into a multibillion dollar industry. While coaches are earning millions, athletes are often penniless, frustrated that they can't monetize their YouTube channels or make money through endorsements or other ways.

"I'm tired of seeing these college athletes get ripped off," Draymond Green, forward for the Golden State Warriors, said during a press conference Monday.

The NCAA has threatened to drop colleges from tournaments if they let players make money. Universities have protested the bill too. But so far, it's been useless. At least a dozen other states are considering similar moves and a congressional bill may also come out of it. The era of free labor from college athletes may soon be over.

Everyone in college sports is making money except the athletes

The controversy over California's Fair Pay to Play Act is about who controls all the profits from college sports and who truly earns it.

Many people are getting rich from the current setup. In the past decade, coaches' pay has skyrocketed. The highest-paid head coach in 2018 was Alabama's Nick Saban, who raked in $8.3 million. Even the lowest-paid coaches in the SEC are making at least $1 million.

Individual colleges make a ton of money, too. Cable networks pay each Big Ten school about $50 million a year just for broadcast rights, and universities also cut multimillion dollar sponsorship deals with Nike, Adidas, and other athletic brands. University employees working in athletics departments often make six-figure salaries.

The few people who coordinate the leagues make even more. The head of the Big Ten Conference, Jim Delaney, made $5.5 million in 2018. The head of the NCAA, Mark Emmert, made $4 million.

The only ones who aren't making money are the athletes themselves. Under NCAA rules, student athletes can get scholarships and small stipends but no sponsorship or endorsement deals of any kind. California State Sen. Nancy Skinner, who wrote the Fair Pay to Play Act, calls it "exploitation."

"For decades, college sports has generated billions for all involved except the very people most responsible for creating the wealth. That's wrong," she tweeted on Monday.

The new law doesn't actually require schools to pay athletes directly, as if they were employees. Instead, it makes it illegal for schools to prevent an athlete from earning money by selling the rights to his or her name, image, or likeness to outside bidders.

The law also allows college athletes to hire an agent to represent them. There are a few restrictions, such as one that prevents athletes from signing endorsement deals that conflict with their team's sponsors. For example, a football player could not wear Under Armour gear during team events if the student's school is sponsored by Adidas.

This isn't just about letting star basketball and football players cash in on their fame. It's also about giving female athletes, who have few opportunities to make money when they go pro, a chance to earns some endorsements. It's also about all the college athletes who don't make it to the pros but who could still make some money while they're in school.

As with most legislation, those who oppose the California law are the ones who stand to lose the most. Emmert, president of the NCAA, sent a letter to California lawmakers earlier this year asking them not to pass the bill. He later called it an "existential threat" to the college sports model in an interview with CBS Sports.

It's not hard to imagine their concern that companies and brands will spend more money making deals with individual athletes and less money on deals with universities and cable advertising.

After Newsom signed the bill, the PAC-12 Conference decried the move, saying the new law would lead to the "professionalization" of college sports, with "significant negative consequences."

That statement was likely a warning to other states that are considering similar laws.

Momentum is building to change the business of college sports

There's actually a lot of public support for the idea of letting college athletes earn money from the games they play.

Lawmakers from more than a dozen states have shown interest in proposing similar laws or have already done so. Some of their bills are slightly different. Some require schools to pay athletes directly or to pay for their health care after they leave college.

A lawmaker in Illinois just introduced a bill Monday that mirrors California's. Pennsylvania lawmakers are in the process of introducing one, too.

"We will soon introduce legislation that will empower our college athletes and make sure that they are fairly compensated for their work and efforts - especially in a system where so many others profit off their talents while they have to be careful to avoid a work-related injury which could end their athletic career and negatively impact their future," Pennsylvania state Reps. Dan Miller and Ed Gainey wrote in a recent memo, according to the Patriot News.

Even Congress is toying with the idea.

US House Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, an Ohio Republican and former wide receiver for the Ohio State Buckeyes, said this week that he would consider introducing a bill at the congressional level.

"I actually think that we need to do something quickly, within the next year," Gonzalez told ESPN. "I don't think you have three years to figure this out. I think decisions will start happening immediately."

It's not that far-fetched. There's seems to be wide bipartisan support for this. In California, Republicans and Democrats voted unanimously to pass the Fair Pay to Play Act. It could happen in Congress, too.

Gonzalez already has a House colleague on board with his plan.

I fully agree. People should get the benefit of the value they create in America.

The @NCAA has devised a system where predominantly young, black adult student-athletes create value at huge cost to their bodies. Then, predominantly old, white administrators see the benefit. BS! https://t.co/6ZOBSEkbtI
- Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) October 2, 2019

Now the waiting begins to see what the NCAA will do. Will it change the rules or will it sue every state that passes a law like California's? The group has three years to decide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free labor from college athletes may soon come to an end

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California is shaking up the big business of college sports. Earlier this week, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that would let college athletes make money from endorsement deals for the first time. Right now, they're the only ones involved in the $14 billion industry who aren't cashing in.

# data[].attributes.body
Even the NCAA wants to pay! Published by Colin Dwyer on October 29, 2019, the article includes quotes from Michael Drake.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a surprise move, the NCAA says it intends to allow college athletes to earn compensation - but it says it's only starting to work out the details of how that would take place. The organization's board of governors said Tuesday that it had voted unanimously to permit student-athletes to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness.

"We must embrace change to provide the best possible experience for college athletes," said Michael Drake, the NCAA board chair who is also president of Ohio State University. In a statement, Drake stressed the need for "additional flexibility" in the NCAA's approach.

Drake added, "This modernization for the future is a natural extension of the numerous steps NCAA members have taken in recent years to improve support for student-athletes, including full cost of attendance and guaranteed scholarships."

The timeline for implementing the changes was not immediately clear in the NCAA's statement.

The NCAA, the national governing body for collegiate athletics, said its decision followed input over the past few months from "current and former student-athletes, coaches, presidents, faculty and commissioners across all three divisions."

Notably, the decision follows California's adoption of a law that bans schools in the state from preventing student-athletes from accepting compensation from advertisers and allows them to hire agents. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the legislation late last month, calling it the "beginning of a national movement."

Indeed, it did spark a trend. Politicians in Illinois, New York, Florida and other states have introduced bills allowing endorsement deals for college athletes. And days after the California bill was signed, national politicians signaled they would push for something similar in Congress.

Amid this groundswell of political support for paying college athletes, the NCAA has quickly eased its public resistance to the idea. After initially pushing back hard on California's measure, the NCAA has recently been taking a more conciliatory tone, suggesting it would "move forward with ongoing efforts to make adjustments" to the organization's practices.

The NCAA has reported annual revenues topping $1 billion, largely on the strength of TV rights and marketing fees connected with its most prominent sports and events, such as the highly lucrative Division 1 men's basketball tournament.

And though the organization long argued that it was converting those revenues into scholarships and other opportunities for students, that line had lately attracted prominent skeptics - such as NFL cornerback Richard Sherman and NBA superstar LeBron James, who hosted Newsom's signing ceremony on his sports programming company la st month.

"As a national governing body, the NCAA is uniquely positioned to modify its rules to ensure fairness and a level playing field for student-athletes," organization President Mark Emmert said in a statement Tuesday. "The board's action today creates a path to enhance opportunities for student-athletes while ensuring they compete against students and not professionals."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCAA Plans To Allow College Athletes To Get Paid For Use Of Their Names, Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The organization says it's just starting to work out the details of how athletes would be compensated. The governing body's decision Tuesday reverses course on its longstanding objection to the idea.

# 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.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).

# data[].attributes.body
Published on May 8, 2019 by Michelle Brutlag Hosick, this source is quite recent. It provides information on college athletes' performances in the academic parts of college.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
NCAA.org - The Official Site of the NCAA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Division I student-athletes continue to succeed in the classroom at record-high levels. The overall four-year Academic Progress Rate concluding with the 2017-18 academic year held steady at 983, the highest ever recorded.

Four-year rates for football (964), men's basketball (967) and women's basketball (982) also held steady, while baseball increased by a point (976). The four-year rates include student-athletes who were in school between the 2014-15 and 2017-18 academic years.

NCAA President Mark Emmert praised the commitment to higher education among Division I student-athletes.

"We are proud of the continued high level of academic success Division I student-athletes achieve," Emmert said. "We are seeing some flattening of the rates, which is not unusual given the large amount of data over a long period of time. But we will continue to focus on academic achievement and graduation as the ultimate goal for college athletes."

Teams at limited-resource schools continued their trend of improvement. Since 2010-11, teams at schools that meet the NCAA's limited-resource definition have improved from a 945 single-year APR to 969 in 2017-18. Limited-resource schools are determined by per capita institutional expenditures, athletics department funding and Pell Grant aid.

Historically black colleges and universities saw their single-year APR dip a point to 960, though schools in that category still posted a significantly higher score than their 2010-11 rate of 918.

To compete in the 2019-20 postseason, teams must achieve a 930 four-year APR. NCAA members chose the 930 standard because that score predicts, on average, a 50% graduation rate for teams at that APR level. Additionally, teams must earn at least a 930 four-year APR to avoid penalties.

Since the Division I membership created the Academic Performance Program 15 years ago, more than 17,500 former student-athletes have earned APR points for their prior teams by returning to college and earning a degree after their eligibility expired. Of those, more than half (9,174) competed in football, baseball or basketball. These students typically do not count in graduation rates because they earn degrees outside the six-year window allowed by both the federal graduation rate and the NCAA's Graduation Success Rate.

Georgetown President John J. DeGioia, chair of the Division I Committee on Academics, recognized the impact of the Academic Performance Program.

"The Committee on Academics commends the positive impact the Academic Performance Program has had for our students engaged in intercollegiate athletics," DeGioia said. "Thousands more students earn degrees every year with these academic expectations, accessing the lifelong benefits of a college education. We are proud of their success and sustained commitment to higher education."

The Committee on Academics is conducting a holistic review of the Academic Performance Rate metric, including which student-athletes are included in the rate, how transfers are accounted for in the rate (before and after graduation), how the rate is calculated and how penalties are assigned.

The review, approved last year by the Division I Board of Directors, is intended to evaluate how well the APR is aligning with its purpose: monitoring and demonstrating academic performance and progress toward graduation. The review is expected to continue through 2019.

The APR, created to provide more of a real-time measurement of academic success than graduation rates offer, is a team-based metric where scholarship student-athletes earn one point each term for remaining eligible and one point for staying in school or graduating. Schools that don't offer scholarships track their recruited student-athletes.

Every Division I sports team submits data to have its Academic Progress Rate calculated each academic year. The NCAA reports both single-year rates and four-year rates, on which penalties for poor academic performance are based. National aggregates are based on all teams with usable, member-provided data. APRs for each team, lists of teams receiving public recognition and those receiving sanctions are available online through the NCAA's searchable database.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Division I college athletes match record-high academic performance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Division I student-athletes continue to succeed in the classroom at record-high levels. The overall four-year Academic Progress Rate concluding with the 2017-18 academic year held steady at 983, the highest ever recorded. Four-year rates for football (964), men's basketball (967) and women's basketball (982) also held steady, while baseball increased by a point (976).

# data[].attributes.body
Published on November 20, 2019, Justin Reyes gives a clean persuasive paragraph on why college athletes should be paid, with some good reasons and interviews with other college athletes.

# 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
The publishing and revision of the different articles varry, because they give reports on years of school sports and their injuries (2008-2018). The articles give information on the injuries that students (up to college) suffered while playing sports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
d) Data Tables

Data and other material from the reports may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without express written permission. Contact the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research for all questions regarding reports at nccsir@unc.edu.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
d) Data Tables Data and other material from the reports may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without express written permission. Contact the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research for all questions regarding reports at nccsir@unc.edu.

# data[].attributes.headline
College Students and Student-Athletes Believe That College Athletes Should Be Paid

# data[].attributes.subject
College Students and Student-Athletes Believe That College Athletes Should Be Paid

# data[].attributes.body
The article was published on Wednesday, September 11, 2019, and revised in 2020. It agrees with my claim, giving statistical information (from a survey) on what percentage of students say college athletes should get paid. It also includes the NCAA president's point of view. With no spelling errors, it was made for the purpose of simply informing.