# data[].attributes.body
This one talks about the income of the coaches and how they get millions. But then the actual athlete gets payed dirt.

C.June, 1st, 2018

R.The information is pretty important talks a bit about the coaches large salary and the hours Athletes have to put in between school and sports.

A.Matthew Brooks

A.I'd say it is pretty accurate they also give credit to other sources on important information such as coach salary.

P.Persuasion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
This one is talks a bit about March Madness, but it is still talking about how college athletes should get paid. This is cause college athletes play in March Madness

C.Mar, 20th, 2017

R.They talk about the pros and cons of paying College Athletes which is important information needed for an argument for or against something.

A.Madisen Martinez

A.They don't give much statistics as with how they wrote this artical they don't need much, but when they do they credit the sources they used to find the information.

P.Inform

# 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
Some reasonable thinking is in this. I think college athletes should get paid because of all of their expenses and work. This article agrees with that.

C.November, 20th, 2019

R.They talk quite a bit about how College Athletes after x amount of years don't get scholarships meaning they have to pay for tuition.

A.Justin Reyes

A.The information is a huge part of their point as they look at the perspective of a College Athlete

P.Persuasion with a lot of information to back up their point

# 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
This talks about how today they are starting pay college athletes for the use of their names. But also the problems with paying college athletes

C.Updated 2019 No specific dates

R.They updated the page and talk about how now College Athletes are starting to get paid from the use of their names and pictures. They also talk about how much money the NCAA are making off of these players

A.Adam Bettcher

A.The information referring to the update is coming straight from the NCAA the company who runs College Basketball.

P.Inform

# 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
This is talking about how now college athletes are getting paid but they need things like sponsors.

C.November, 1st, 2019

R.This also talks a bit about how now they are getting paid for the use of their names and pictures. They also talk a lot about how they can do sponsorships that help out the Athletes financially.

A.Khristopher J. Brooks

A.They talk about a claim from the company themselves and talk about how this could affect college athletes in the future.

P.Inform

# 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.attachment_link.readable_text
March Madness is in full swing, with the college basketball championship raking in big bucks for the NCAA. Former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon thinks those players should also get paid.

O'Bannon, who currently has a lawsuit against the association, told CNBC's " Closing Bell" the athletes who play in the tournament "want to be there and are honored to play in that tournament.

"I just think that along with their possible degrees that they are getting, they should be compensated for it."

While the NCAA has 17 official corporate sponsors that have each paid the organization $10 million to $35 million, O'Bannon said the athletes' compensation doesn't have to be $1 million but just a "little something" to recognize that they are bringing in money to their schools.

Read More Sweet 16 a slam dunk for advertisers

Nearly five years ago, O'Bannon sued the NCAA, Electronic Arts and the Collegiate Licensing Company over the use of his name and image.

Lawyers for O'Bannon reached a $40 million settlement with EA and the Collegiate Licensing Company, which handles licensing rates for many universities. However, the case against the NCAA is still working its way through the courts.

Last August, a federal judge ruled the association violated antitrust law by prohibiting college athletes from being compensated for use of their names, images and likenesses. The court also ordered that schools be allowed to offer athletes full cost-of-attendance scholarships and put up to $5,000 per athlete, per year of eligibility, into a trust.

The NCAA has appealed the decision. Oral arguments were held last week in the case.

At the time it filed the appeal, the NCAA said it did not believe it violated antitrust laws.

"In its decision, the Court acknowledged that changes to the rules that govern college athletics would be better achieved outside the courtroom, and the NCAA continues to believe that the Association and its members are best positioned to evolve its rules and processes to better serve student-athletes," the NCAA's chief legal officer, Donald Remy, said in a statement last August.

Read More Pay for play: NCAA schools keep eye on legal cases

O'Bannon said the lawsuit was never about the money, it was about righting a wrong.

"If a company or someone was to use your likeness then you should be compensated for it, at the very least asked if your likeness can be used."

Since the legal action, the issue has grown from using a college athlete's likeness to whether he or she should be paid while in school.

For O'Bannon, the biggest thing is that the conversation is now happening.

"I feel strongly that if everyone involved can get together and talk about things they can work things out, whether it be pay when you are in school or collecting when your eligibility is up."

-CNBC's Steven Desaulniers, CNBC's Eric Chemi and Alicia Jessop contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College athletes should be compensated: Former UCLA star

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
March Madness is in full swing, with the college basketball championship raking in big bucks for the NCAA. Former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon thinks those players should also get paid. O'Bannon, who currently has a lawsuit against the association, told CNBC's " Closing Bell" the athletes who play in the tournament "want to be there and are honored to play in that tournament.

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