# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
why and how college athletes should be paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
why and how college athletes should be paid ppt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why and How College Athletes Should be Paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why and How College Athletes Should be Paid. Student E. Why and How College Athletes Should be Paid. Kevin Ware's Injury & Exploitation Reasons that college athletes are not paid Response Reasons colleges athletes should be paid Popular proposed system Solution Questions Works Cited.

# data[].attributes.body
1

# 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.body
2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Michael Wilbon, Pardon the Interruption co-hostJul 18, 2011, 03:00 AM ET

Close
Michael Wilbon is a featured columnist for ESPN.com and ESPNChicago.com. He is the longtime co-host of "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN and appears on the "NBA Sunday Countdown" pregame show on ABC, in addition to ESPN. You can follow him on Twitter: @RealMikeWilbon

I used to argue vehemently against paying college athletes. Tuition, room, board and books were compensation enough. And even if, increasingly, it wasn't enough and virtually every kid who accepted a scholarship was in the red before Christmas of his freshman year, the notion of pay-for-play was at best a logistical nightmare. Where exactly would the money come from? How could you pay college football players but not baseball players or members of the women's field hockey team? And how in the world would you pay men in a way that wouldn't violate Title IX?

So you know what caused me to do a 180 on the issue? That $11 billion deal -- OK, it's $10.8 billion to be exact -- between the NCAA and CBS/Turner Sports for March Madness between 2011 and 2024. We're talking $11 billion for three weekends of television per year. On top of that, there's a new four-year deal with ESPN that pays the BCS $500 million. So, if those two deals were worth, say, a combined $10 billion instead of $11.3 billion, would the games not be televised? Would the quality of the broadcasts or the coverage or the staging of the events be somehow diminished? What if people in the business of money took $1.3 billion off the top, invested it, sheltered it and made it available to provide a stipend to college athletes, how could anybody stand on principal and argue against paying the people who make the events possible in the first place?

Let me declare up front I wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in distributing the funds equitably or even paying every college athlete. I'm interested in seeing the people who produce the revenue share a teeny, tiny slice of it. That's right, football and men's basketball players get paid; lacrosse, field hockey, softball, baseball, soccer players get nothing. You know what that's called? Capitalism. Not everything is equal, not everything is fair. The most distinguished professor at the University of Alabama won't make $5.9 million in his entire tenure in Tuscaloosa; Nick Saban will make that this year. So I don't want to hear that it's "unfair" to pay the quarterback of Alabama more than all the sociology students in the undergraduate college.

Using the inability to distribute the funds equally as an impediment is an excuse, a rather intellectually lazy one at that. Nothing about the way hundreds of millions of dollars is distributed is equitable or even fair. The BCS' new deal with ESPN was based, in part, on paying more money to schools/conferences with regard to what has been called "population centers." Of the $174 million distributed from five bowl games, 83.4 percent went to six conferences in 2011. In question right now is whether the BCS even conducts its business dealings in a manner consistent with principles expressed in federal anti-trust laws. So, the equitable-application excuse for not paying athletes doesn't hold water; at the very least there's a level of hypocrisy here that ought to make the opponents of paying athletes uncomfortable.

Don't get me wrong, paying players out of individual athletic department budgets is beyond impractical; it's probably not feasible. Because so many athletic departments run at a deficit, it's difficult to make the case that schools should pay regular salaries to athletes, even football players who produce more income than anybody. But it's another thing entirely for the students who play for revenue-producing teams (at UConn and the University of Tennessee, this would include the women's basketball teams) to be somehow compensated from the lucrative television/radio/Internet rights fees they make wholly possible.

It's commendable that the NCAA has paid millions into a fund for in-need athletes to cover clothing purchases, emergency travel and medical expenses. There's also a special assistance fund and a student-athlete opportunity fund. Why can't hundreds of millions of dollars be directed into those, and in turn make money much more accessible to athletes for the kinds of regular day-to-day expenses regular college students pay by working jobs that are off-limits to intercollegiate athletes?

In the meantime, if they cannot be paid outright, surely the scholarship athletes should be able to engage in entrepreneurial pursuits that currently leads to costly NCAA investigations that have proven to be mostly a waste of time since, one, such activities historically haven't been checked and, two, the kids who commit the "infractions" aren't effectively punished. Their revelations, short of Heisman Trophy winners having to return their statues, wind up penalizing only the kids and coaches who remain on the team and in the vast majority of cases have done nothing to merit a penalty themselves.

If somebody is willing to give A.J. Green $750 or $1,000 or even $2,500 for his Georgia Bulldogs jersey, fine, good. If one of his teammates, a tackle, can fetch only $50 for his jersey, then it'll be a good marketing lesson for both of them. It's called supply and demand, and if both men are fortunate enough to reach the NFL it'll be a lesson worth learning because that dynamic will exist their entire careers. If a soccer player can't get a dime for his jersey, well, there's a realization in that, too.

The question from the opponents of paying college athletes inevitably comes back, "What would stop a star player from agreeing to shake hands at a local car dealership for $50,000?" The answer is, nothing. If a car dealer wants to strike that deal then good for the player in question. If a music student goes out in the summer and earns 50 grand, who objects? Who even knows? The student-musician is no less a college student because he struck a lucrative deal. Neither is the student-journalist who spends his nights writing freelance stories and picking up as much money along the way as he can.

If the student as athlete can find a way, he/she should be able to endorse products, to have paid-speaking gigs, to sell memorabilia, as Allen Sack, the author and professor at the college of business at the University of New Haven has suggested in recent years. The best college athletes in the two revenue-producing sports have always been worth much more than tuition, room, board and books. The best football and basketball players in the Big Ten have produced to the degree that a television network has become the model for every conference in America, a network worth at least tens of millions of dollars to the member institutions. Yet, no player can benefit from that work. The players have become employees of the universities and conferences as much as students -- employees with no compensation, which not only violates common decency but perhaps even the law.
Michael Wilbon is a featured columnist for ESPN.com and ESPNChicago.com. He is the longtime co-host of "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN and appears on the "NBA Sunday Countdown" pregame show on ABC in addition to ESPN. Wilbon joined ESPN.com after three decades with The Washington Post, where he earned a reputation as one of the nation's most respected sports journalists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You don't have to pay all of the players all of the same. But not giving athletes a cut of the billion-dollar deals they've helped happen? That's incredibly wrong.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Christina Shoemaker

November 17, 2013

English 15- Dr. Womack

Final Essay

College Athletes Should be Paid

In discussions of compensation for college athletes, a particular point of disagreement has been weather or not college athletes should be paid for their hard work. Some people argue that college athletes have no time to work and therefore should be paid, while others contend that college athletes already receive compensation by not having to pay for college tuition. However the best approach would be to pay athletes for their contributions to the N.C.A.A. College athletes should be paid because they work so hard but receive severe injuries instead of money, they train so hard each day so they can play each game at their very best, and the N.C.A.A. makes profit off of a players work.

Injuries are a common occurrence during sporting events. " There are over 3.8 million sports related injuries that occur each year" (McDevitt). Some of these injuries are concussions. Concussions are caused by a blow to the head and affect the brain in many ways including: balance problems, depression, and many others such as brain damage. Concussions are the most serious injury an athlete can sustain while playing a sport. Derek Sheely, a college football player for Frostburg State University, sustained a bad concussion during preseason. He began to recover then was put back on the field where he was pushed very hard; he hit his head again and ended up dying (Fenno). This is just one incident where a college athlete died due to a concussion. Brain surgeon Jane McDevitt states, "That concussions in athletes accounts for 16.5 billion dollars or 44% of all hospitalization." This is saying how almost half of all the hospitalization in sports are caused by concussions. How is it fair that a player can sustain an expensive injury while putting their health at risk and make nothing? Some concussions are more serious than others. If a college athlete sustains a concussion he or she may have to stop playing that sport and lose the scholarship. If a student loses his or her scholarship they can no longer afford the college they were attending. Most athletes are only attending the school they are at because they received a scholarship, if they loose the scholarship they may drop out of that school due to money. This is one reason why college athletes should be paid.

In contrast, some people think athletes should not be paid. These people think this because athletes are already being given a free ride to college and they are not employees. An athlete may be given a full paid scholarship; however, if they begin to fail a class they will lose their scholarship. It is hard for athletes to keep their grades up when they're always on the road and have so much work responsibilities on their backs. This unneeded responsibility can affect them in many ways. One way is that if they are always stressing out about loosing their scholarship they will not play as well as they should. Athletes are not only worried about losing their scholarships; they have to worry about making money to afford things. If college athletes were paid they would not have to worry about earning money or loosing their scholarships.

People can say that athletes are not employees but they put in the work, time, and effort that any normal working person puts into his or her job. An athlete trains for 45 hours a week, that's more then a full time job. A full time job is 40 hours. Amy McCormick, Should College Athletes be Paid to Play, stated that," Division 1 athletes are qualified as employees under Federal Labor Laws." In the world today citizens are taught to reward others for their hard work. Training for 45 hours a week is hard work and then trying to manage schoolwork on top of that is even more difficult. The main reason why people think they should not be paid is because they have no way of doing so. If athletes were paid football player could not be paid more then baseball or it would lead to other issues. William David wrote, "That the only reason they are not paid is because there is no way of doing so." Finding a way to pay athletes may be time consuming but it would definitely be worth every second.

Athletes are vulnerable to injuries that can affect them life long. There are many other types of injuries besides concussions that athletes may sustain. Other common types of injuries athletes sustain are broken or dislocated bones. Depending on the degree of the break the athlete may not be able to play a sport anymore also lose the scholarship. Knee injuries are another common type of injuries, which are often career ending, include ACL and MCL. These are knee injuries, ACL and MCL, which can be divesting to an athlete because of how important knees are to a player. Athletes must then go through a rigorous rehab process to help their knee heal. Even when the knee has healed, it will never be the same, which means the athlete is more likely to injure it again, not just by playing sports, but maybe at a work party in their career or a high school reunion. Along with losing their scholarships, injuries like these make mobility an issue; therefore they also make working an issue. Athletes play each game like it's their last and for some it really is their last.

An athlete trains for what seems like endless hours, it's their job, and they receive no benefits for putting in the hard work. In society, we are taught to reward each other for their hard work with good pay. College athletes train for 30-45 hours a week; they attend classes and do a school work for about 45 hours a week; a full time job is 40 hours, both are more then a full time job. An athlete has 168 hours a week and 85 are already taken, that is not including sleeping or time for homework." Between training each week and games, they run out of energy. Running out of energy as a young adult can lead to many problems both physically and mentally. A physical effect is that the athlete is very tired and will not feel like doing his or her schoolwork. If that athlete does not feel like doing his or her work then most of the time they will not do it. This leads to more problems such, as their grades will drop. When their grades drop low enough they will fail the class. If an athlete fails then they can lose their scholarship. If athletes were paid then some of this mental stress would be relieved and they could focus more on school and the sport.

Not only do injuries affect an athlete, but also trying to focus on school and maintain a high grade point average is a very tough thing to do. Trying to focus on a sport while having to make sure your grades are good so the athlete does not lose the scholarship is very nerve-wracking. Sometimes you need a little break from that long day but it's hard when that athlete has no money. "College students have a reputation of being broke," said a professor from Monmouth University. Athletes have no time to obtain even a part time job because they are also training or doing schoolwork. This leads to other problems because if an athlete cannot work then he or she will have no spare money. If the player has no spare money they are not able to get away from their stressful lives and see a movie or go to a bar. Everyone needs time to unwind after long stressful days and a way to keep their mind off of things. If athletes were paid they would have that spare money and could use it to go out and have fun or relax.

Along with focusing on school, many times college athletes do not have the time to join other clubs or activities that the school offers. If a Division I athlete wants to join another club, orchestra, or another sport they will not be able to. If an athlete played a division one sport while being in a club they would have to miss a lot of the clubs meetings. This is unfair it taking away from their college experience. Having a college experience is crucial to a student, these students are not able to have it because they are to busy with the one sport. If student athletes were paid to play the sports they would not feel as left out about not being able to participate in other activities, sports, clubs, or some free time to just relax and reflect on life. This is because they are always on the road. Athletes are always traveling weather its actually on the road or just running around at a practice. If an athlete is going to a game he or she may be in the bus for hours. Athletes end up having to study and do their school work on the bus. They also have to miss many classes because they are always traveling. "Athletes don't have free choice of what major they take if the class conflicts with the practice schedule, they cannot take it or just miss a majority of the classes," said Amy McCormick (Cooper). Athletes are sometimes put in classes that are not even used toward their major. They are put into these classes because these classes are they only ones that fit into the training and game schedule. This is bad because when the athlete completes his or her four-year scholarship he or she cannot graduate with a degree. If an athlete misses class then he or she begins to fall behind. When a student misses three or more classes at Penn State Brandywine their grade in that class will drop one letter. When that athlete falls to behind they will fail out of the class. If athletes were paid they would not have to worry about loose scholarships. They could focus more on the sport and their grades rather then just trying to slide by to keep the scholarship.

The final reason why college athletes should be paid is because the N.C.A.A. a profit of over millions of dollars off athletes in different ways (Blum). Why should the N.C.A.A. get paid for someone else hard work. The N.C.A.A. makes an annual profit of $750 million each year just off of television contracts (Vecsey). They also make money off of an athlete by selling their jersey. This is very unfair that an athlete's jersey is sold but they make no money off of it. Recently an athlete tried to sell his own shoes and got in trouble for it, that is very unfair. Athletes should be able make compensation off their own attire.

Athletes cannot make money off there own gear. Athletes cannot sell their own shoes or his or her own jersey; this is one way the N.C.A.A. makes money. Another way they make money is when a college makes it to the championship the N.C.A.A. makes money off the tickets that are sold for the games. Another way they make money is off of video games. They use the athletes face in the game but the athlete still makes no money. The New York Times says, "That the N.C.A.A. should set a side a profit for athletes."

Not only is it unfair that the student athletes do not get paid, but the N.C.A.A. makes a profit, the coaches are paid for their position. In 1993 a coach tired to sue the N.C.A.A. because he was not being paid enough and his athletes were mad their jerseys were being sold and they were not making any money (Vecsey). A coach gets paid every time they sign a new athlete to their team. Coaches also get paid to train their athletes; this may be why coaches push their athletes so hard. They do it because they make money off how well their team plays. All in all, athlete not others should be rewarded for there hard work.

In conclusion, the N.C.A.A. needs to pay their student athletes. Instead of the people who are in charge of the organization making all the money, they should have some of their salaries cut in order to give the student athletes a specific amount of money for each semester they participate in a sport. College athletes should be paid because they work so hard but sustain severe injuries instead of money. Concussions may not only be career ending, but life threatening. Knee injuries prohibit athletes from being the same kind of athlete pre-injury. Student athletes train so hard each day so they can play each game at his or her very best, while trying to attend class and get all of the work done for each class. Student athletes have no time to be apart of any other school activities because of this. The N.C.A.A makes money off of each student athlete while the athlete receives no compensation for his or her work.

Work Cited

Blum, D. E. "Assistant basketball coaches sue NCAA over salary limits." The Chronicle of

Higher Education, (1993). Gale. Web. 5 Nov. 2013

"College Athletes should Get Paid Too." University Wire. Oct 16 2013. ProQuest. Web. 5 Nov. 2013 .

Cooper, Kenneth J. "Should College Athletes be Paid to Play?" Diverse Issues in Higher Education 28.10 (2011): 12-3. ProQuest. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.

Fenno, Nathan. "Suit Filed Against NCAA, Coach in Frostburg Player's Death". The Washington times (Washington, D.C. : 1982) (0732-8494), p. C.2

McDevitt, Jane K., et al. "Neuronal Structural Protein Polymorphism And Concussion In College Athletes." Brain Injury 25.11 (2011): 1108-1113. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.

"Should College Athletes be Paid?" New York Times (1923-Current file): 1. Mar 25 1990. ProQuest. Web. 5 Nov. 2013 .

"Should College Athletes be paid?" Sentinel: 2. Mar 2006. ProQuest. Web. 26 Nov. 2013.

Vecsey, George. "College Athletes Move Concussions Into the Courtroom." New York Times 30 Nov. 2011, sec. B: 14. LexisNexis. Web. 05 Nov. 2013

Williams, David. "Williams: Student-Athletes Should Not be Paid Or Treated as University

Employees"." University Wire. Apr 07 2011. ProQuest. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Christina Shoemaker November 17, 2013 English 15- Dr. Womack Final Essay College Athletes Should be Paid In discussions of compensation for college athletes, a particular point of disagreement has been weather or not college athletes should be paid for their hard work.

# data[].attributes.body
3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCAA says athletes may profit from name, image and likeness | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NCAA Board of Governors on Tuesday voted unanimously to allow student-athletes to be paid for the use of their name, image and likeness once its three divisions decide on rules for such opportunities.

# 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
4

# data[].attributes.body
photo 3

# data[].attributes.body
2

# data[].attributes.body
1

# data[].attributes.body
photo 4

# data[].attributes.body
photo 5

# data[].attributes.body
video 2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
/ MoneyWatch

Elite college athletes could pocket tens of thousands of dollars annually during their school years once the NCAA officially allows them to score sponsorships and endorsements. A wider pool of athletes without prominent profiles could earn smaller amounts off local deals that would at least make life on a student budget more livable.

An NCAA announcement earlier this week directed its three divisions to allow student-athletes "to benefit from their name, image and likeness." Student athletes won't see the multi-million-dollar deals that professionals enjoy, but top-tier students at schools with elite basketball and football programs - especially in big-sports states like California, Texas, Kentucky and North Carolina - could bank upwards of hundreds of thousands during their college careers, according to experts in sports branding.

Especially intriguing, the experts say, is the potential for athletic sponsorship deals that never existed before in small to mid-sized markets that don't have professional teams and therefore lack a pool of stars to tap for such promotions.

Local businesses will likely be eager to tap student-athletes who connect with fans, said Tim Derdenger, a sports marketing and branding expert and professor at Carnegie Mellon University. For instance, a sports gym in Bloomington, Indiana - home of Indiana University - could land a college basketball player endorsement, while a golf course in Stillwater, Oklahoma, might reach out to an Oklahoma State University golfer, Derdenger said.

"Imagine you're a car dealer and you're in a city like Dayton, Ohio," said Kelly O'Keefe, a Virginia Commonwealth professor and branding expert. "Dayton has a good [college] basketball team, but their players aren't known outside the local level. But in Dayton, they're heroes. So, if I'm a car dealer, I'm looking at this as an opportunity to sponsor a local athlete."

500,000 athletes in play

Bigger athletic brands such as Adidas are likely to be selective, but could still be interested in tapping the student-athlete market at some 1,100 NCAA member schools educating a total of 500,000 young men and women.

"In the marketing offices of Nike and Under Armour, they're looking at individual athletes and programs who have the most promising records and who look like a good bet for the future," O'Keefe said.

The experts based their numbers on deals that college athletes have received after they recently turned pro, adding that a definite range doesn't exist yet because the market for college athlete endorsements hasn't been created. One example is when Golfer Justin Suh left the University of Southern California this past summer and turned pro and soon after signed a three-year endorsement deal with Titleist reportedly valued between $500,000 and $750,000.

"Keep the pressure high"

The NCAA has long been criticized for generating billions in revenue but not sharing those dollars with student-athletes who take to field and court for games.

The NCAA's governing board gave each division a January 2021 deadline to modify their rules. Since Tuesday's announcement, public figures have questioned the noncommittal, broad-strokes language the association used to explain the next steps.

Jeremy Bloom, a former Olympic skier, tweeted "Don't buy the NCAA hype." Bloom noted that the NCAA's announcement mentioned name, image and likeness rights "in a manner consistent with the collegiate model."

Here's my statement on the big news today regarding the @NCAA's name, image and likeness press release: pic.twitter.com/fYrJItJf0i
- Jeremy Bloom (@JeremyBloom11) October 30, 2019

"What in the world does that mean?" Bloom tweeted. "Bottom line, state legislators need to continue down the path and keep the pressure high while the NCAA figures out how to hold up their house of cards."

Nancy Skinner, a California senator who co-sponsored a new state law for student-athlete compensation that takes effect in 2023, also pointed at the NCAA's language.

California's leadership is a game-changer once again!

The NCAA's announcement shows promise on giving college athletes' NIL rights. But the devil is in the details on what the NCAA means by adhering to the "collegiate model" in its new rules. https://t.co/liaOfH6TOO
- Nancy Skinner (@NancySkinnerCA) October 29, 2019

"The NCAA's announcement shows promise on giving college athletes' name, image and likeness rights," she said in a tweeted statement. "But the devil is in the details on what the NCAA means by adhering to the 'collegiate model' in its new rules."

One injury away from never playing again

Local sponsorship dollars that experts are predicting, though not in the millions, are still likely to be significant for students because "they're always one injury away from never being able to play again," O'Keefe said. The sponsorships are "a little bit of money they can sock away for a rainy day," he added.

Henry Hebda, a junior football player at Indiana's Valparaiso University, said extra money from sponsorships would help student-athletes who are upperclassmen pay rent and utilities if they move to off-campus housing. The money could also go toward nutrition supplements for weight training and body conditioning, he noted.

"It would definitely help some of us get extra food that we need to gain weight," said Hebda, 20, who plays cornerback. "People spend a lot of money on that and on buying post-workout drinks."

Moriyah Hamell, a freshman basketball player at Niagara University in Lewiston, New York, said she doesn't have a job while attending school. She said she's living solely off a refund check from her student loans. The opportunity to profit from an endorsement or sponsorship would help all college athletes feel more financially stable, she said.

"Having money from the outside means you can buy whatever you want or need," said Hamell, 18. "And me, not coming from a financially wealthy family, I would use that to buy a winter coat or boots."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCAA athletes getting paid: Thousands could be in their futures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Local companies in mid-size markets could be especially eager to land college-athlete endorsements, sports experts say

# data[].attributes.body
5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An Opinion in Favor of NCAA Athletes Receiving Pay Checks for their Hard Work

You wake up at 5 am, go to a two or three hour practice, depending on the coach's mood this morning. Then you shower and rush to make it to class just as the professor is about to close the door in your face.

You have class all morning like the rest of the students, and when noon comes around, instead of relaxing and enjoying a nice meal like everyone else on campus, you head back to the weight room for lifting or to the track for a second session of crucial practice.

The afternoon flies by and before you know it, night has creeped in and taken over. It is midnight already and you still find yourself at the library trying to cram in last minute studying for your 8:30 am exam.

By the time you meet your bed once again, the night is half over and the clock reads 2:30 am. Three hours disappear and you find yourself restarting the cycle all over again.

For those athletes on campus, I'm sure this sounds absolutely normal, but for those non-athletes, welcome to your classmates' never-ending torture.

College athletes work harder than most of us realize and the sad part is, that aside from the few fans on the sidelines, they don't get much recognition for their dedication.

Some athletes do receive generous athletic scholarships, but others are not as lucky and do not even receive any money for their athletic ability.

Those athletes privileged with scholarships, are not guaranteed the same amount every semester. If a NCAA athlete does not follow his/her coach's desires, his/her scholarship can easily be taken away without discussion, at which point they can wave bye-bye to their dreams of ever hoping to reach professional level.

Let's be realistic, chances of making it pro are less than 10 percent for most sports. So what exactly would be a fair way to reward these exhausted ball players? Money, of course.

So what if they're in college? The work these college athletes are putting in and the hours they are spending sweating, competing, and most importantly, getting hurt, deserve some type of reward.

College students have a reputation for always being broke, especially athletes who do not have the time to work even if they wanted to.

After all, there are only 24 hours in a day and with 16 of those taken by practice and class, where is a $7.25/hr. job supposed to fit in?

NCAA athletes risk their health every single morning they wake up; whether it is at practice, conditioning, or at actual games, athletes are constantly risking injuries that could permanently ruin their athletic careers.

The more dangerous a sport is, the more zeroes a pro athlete's paycheck has. Therefore, it is only fair that at least one zero makes it to a NCAA entertainer who is putting in almost the same, if not more, amount of determination and effort.

I'm not saying give them a six-figure check, but some type of compensation that would at least make up for the part-time job they cannot have would be nice.

Athletes do more than just run from one side of the court to the other, they do more than just sweat and entertain us on a Sunday afternoon.

They leave their hearts in the game and that is something that should be accounted for, just like it is beyond accounted for in professionals.

PHOTO COURTESY of Jim Reme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College Athletes Should Get Paid Too - The Outlook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An Opinion in Favor of NCAA Athletes Receiving Pay Checks for their Hard Work You wake up at 5 am, go to a two or three hour practice, depending on the coach's mood this morning. Then you shower and rush to make it to class just as the professor is about to close the door in your face.

# 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.attachment_link.readable_text
College athletes should be making money in some way related to the sports that they play. It doesn't make much sense for them to not see monetary gain from what they are potentially going to be doing for a living. Sports is one of the most popular industries in the entire world, and it is still growing. Because of this, it only makes sense that college athletes should have some of the same financial opportunities as their professional counterparts.

One argument that has been made to justify college athletes not being paid is that they are not professionals and, therefore, should not receive income. This argument does have some logic behind it, but it simply does not hold up when one takes into account the fact that head coaches are making millions of dollars per season.

The increasing amount of money being made in college sports each year is making it more difficult to argue against paying players, according to a Time article by sports writer Sean Gregory. Nick Saban, who is the head coach of the Alabama Crimson Tide Football team, made $11 million this past season, and defensive coordinator Jeremy Pruitt and offensive coordinator Brian Daboll were both paid over $1 million. How is it okay for players to not get paid at all when coaches are being paid so much money?

Yes, some of these players are getting scholarships and some special privileges, like priority when it comes to registering for courses, but that's just not enough when they are playing sports, especially ones with physical contact. It's no secret that highly physical sports and injuries go hand-in-hand, and a player could have a career-ending injury at any moment while playing. The unsafety of the sports alone should be reason enough for players to earn some kind of revenue from going out and competing for their schools.

If the National Collegiate Athletic Association will not to allow college athletes to be paid for playing the sports, then they should at least let them make money by marketing themselves. Players don't make any money from the selling of merchandise, such as their jerseys. They aren't allowed to market themselves and earn money as a result. Why is that?

According to a 2011 NCAA Survey, many students average 30 hours of practice a week, while some spend over 40. When you combine that amount of time with the time spent in classes and the time spent doing homework, it's practically impossible for them to find time to work a part time job to earn some spending money.

This restriction on college athletes is doing more harm than good. I see no real point in hindering the athletes in this kind of way when other college students can do work within their majors and not be penalized. Music majors with scholarships are completely free to be part of and play in school performances while also going out and performing at clubs to make money. The same goes for students studying acting in college and performing in school films while also being allowed to act in films outside the school. I've never heard anything about students in these majors being prohibited from promoting themselves, so why are college athletes restricted from doing so?

Allowing athletes to sign endorsement deals with brands like Nike and Adidas would be a huge step forward, and it would benefit both the players and the companies. In the past, major shoe corporations were essentially bribing college athletes and their family members as a way to get them to attend certain colleges. Making it legal for athletes to have endorsement deals with companies would eliminate this problem. As an additional benefit, college athletes would also be more likely to stay in school until they graduate, because they would be earning money and wouldn't have to worry about dropping out to financially support their families.

What harm could come from giving college athletes a respectable level of freedom and opportunity when it comes to making money from playing sports? Perhaps at one point in time the practice of not letting them do so made sense, but we are now living in an age when there are so many options for marketing oneself, and college athletes have access to none of them. As a fan of college sports and a friend of several college athletes, I feel obligated to support them in any way I can when it comes to changing these policies so that they can start to make income.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College athletes deserve to be paid for their play - The Triangle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College athletes should be making money in some way related to the sports that they play. It doesn't make much sense for them to not see monetary gain from what they are potentially going to be doing for a living. Sports is one of the most popular industries in the entire world, and it is still growing.

# data[].attributes.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.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
video 1

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