Morales 1 Andres Morales Professor Grunzel ENC 1101-01 October 7 2013 Cashing Out The question whether to pay

colligate athletes has become a question of great argument over the past few months. With the new lawsuit coming out in the news against the NCAA regarding the exploitation of athletes, an age-old idea is now coming to the forefront of media. The argument is that college sports have evolved into an eleven billion dollar industry, yet the athletes have seen no part in this revenue. (JEANSONNE) One side of the argument says that paying these athletes would take away the passion that colligate athletes have for their sports. Although this is probably a valid point, the opposing side of this argument poses a much better point disagreeing with the thought that college athletes should not receive money. The argument to pay these athletes has been centered on the greed of the NCAA to not a pay a penny to athletes when they generate billions of dollars through ticket sales, endorsements, and video games.

I will be analyzing an article written by Taylor Branch, a leading civil-rights historian, which attempts to justify the reasons why college athletes should be paid. Branch begins his intriguing article, titled The Shame of College Sports, by reminding the audience of the constant scandals in the media today regarding the under the table payments these athletes receive. He highlights certain scandals such as the Reggie Bush scandal; in which Bush had to return the Heisman Trophy because he and his family were

Morales 2 being compensated for Reggies colligate play. Branch shows the reader these scandals to highlight the true scandal, which is lack of compensation these colligate athletes deserve after all the revenue they bring in for the big universities. After Branch speaks of previous NCAA scandals he begins to go into detail about the amount of revenue college sports brings in. Branch states that in 2010 the SEC, which consists of only a handful of football teams, brought in over a billion dollars in revenue during a struggling economy (Branch). With all of this money being made, Branch asks why cant players be played a small amount? The answer is because college players are considered to be student-athletes. The NCAA has used the term student-athlete multiple times to win countless lawsuits in court. As in the case of Ray Dennison whose wife filed for workers compensation when Ray died from an injury suffered during a college football game (BRANCH). The NCAA won the suit by claiming that the athlete was not an employee of the school, he was just a student-athlete, although Dennison was bringing in revenue for the NCAA. If you were making money for someone wouldnt you want a cut in that pie. It is the same concept for these athletes who are putting their bodies on the line every practice and game. Therefore this article needs to be heard. Which brings up the question, who was this article meant for? Who is the audience of this controversial article? Hopefully this article reaches all fans of college sports, and raises a better awareness to this topic. The word hopefully is used because many say that if action isnt taken by the NCAA, that in the coming years lawsuits will end the NCAA and in turn college sports. Although these are just rumors this is the reason or the exigency for Branchs article. He is bringing this problem to the mainstream media to save the NCAA from its own self-destruction. Just

Morales 3 as many other Americans, Taylor Branch enjoys watching college sports, this is why he is so passionate about these athletes and the NCAA switching up their policies. I am also part of this group of Americans who enjoy watching their college football on Saturdays, or their NCAA March Madness basketball. This is why I choose this article to write about. Although I agree with Branch for the most part, the other side of the argument must also be represented in my writing. The other side being those who want the NCAA to stand their ground and not pay any colligate athletes. This opposing side posses a very valid argument too. They argue that paying colligate athletes would take away their passion for the game. It would also influence recruiting; making the richest teams the most elite because they would be able to pay the largest amount to these players out of high school. Paying athletes in college may also reduce their financial incentive to become a professional athlete since they are already being paid in college. This side of the argument, the side that doesnt want to pay colligate athletes, is actually the majority opinion right now. Making Branchs argument the minority, although this argument is slowly tipping the other direction, therefore turning Branchs into the majority opinion. In conclusion both sides of this argument are presenting a valid point, but it is clear that these athletes need to be compensated for their work. I say this for the reason stated above, which are that the NCAA is generating billions of dollars off of these kids. This decision to pay colligate athletes is going to make or break the NCAA. Hopefully they make the right decision, because I would really hate to see college football disappear due to law suits and greediness.

Morales 4

Morales 5 Works cited

Jeansonne, Jean. "NCAA Stance on Paying Athletes 'an Absurdity'" Newsday. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. Branch, Taylor. "The Atlantic." The Atlantic. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.