Should College Athletes Be Paid?

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) generated a record-breaking $1 billion in revenue from the March Madness Basketball Tournament alone. It was reported in 2015 that over 200 Division 1 schools made a combined profit of nearly $10 billion for the NCAA, with 24 of those schools bringing in more than $100 million each. While many schools make less than a fraction of those amounts several still reel in millions, if not thousands, of dollars in athletics revenue. The more interesting question is how much do the student athletes themselves take away from the profits they create? Not one cent.

Now it's very important to note that what I have just presented to you all is a very easy way to assume that not paying student athletes is outrageously unfair. When in reality the idea is much more complex, it's one that's accompanied with many consequences that are unknown or weren't considered to most. The solution to this concern is not as uncomplicated as just handing players checks, instead it's one that needs lawful, possible congressional, consideration and a carefully thought out system that works for both student and professional. 

Many argue that student athletes shouldn't be paid because they are paid through the scholarships and benefits the colleges grant them. However with practice, weight room/conditioning training, and competitions student athletes have expressed how increasingly difficult it is for them to take advantage of the educational part of said scholarships. Others also discuss how mostly men's football and basketball programs account for majority of the revenue, therefore there's confusion on how would/how much programs that generate little to no money be paid. There's much more concerns and issues regarding the topic, such as the possibility of athletes not even going to class since they're already receiving compensation. 

On the contrary, several people believe it's only right that athletes receive some fraction of the money that they generate, some go as far as to say it's gross exploitation. It's known that only 2% or less will go beyond college athletics and reach professional sports programs, with that being said many advocate for student athletes being paid as it's financially straining being a college and athletic student. Many cannot hold a livable paying job, or even a job, because of their time consuming commitment to their sport and classes. Some believe it would be a smart way to keep star players that generate millions going to college as it's beginning to be more popular to declare for the professional drafts or play overseas straight out of high school. 

Reading through the Room For Debates I stumbled upon a debate titled "NCAA and the Interests of Students". In Jay Bilas argument "College Athletes Should Be Compensated" he stated "Athletes do not need to be paid by the university as employees. But barriers to athlete compensation outside of the university should be removed." This would be the most uncomplicated way for players to receive the money they deserve as it's not directly connected with their school or conference. They should be able to market themselves by selling autographs, making brand deals, and appearing in commercialized ads without attachment to their college or the NCAA. However the problem of paying non-star players a percentage of the revenue they create is still at large; while they should be paid I'm not sure if it would be presented as a salary or some other form of properly produced payment as taxes and other strings would have to be included. 

Do you think it's only fair student athletes get paid for the revenue they bring in or should they remain unpaid for other logical reasons? 

- Gia Torres