There is a major misrepresentation of the enormous impact that college sports and their athletes have on the overall success of a university. This is especially true in university environments at SUNY, where considerable funding is invested in athletic programs at the collegiate level, to produce athletic excellence. However, the problem lies in the true motivation for this considerable expenditure, the overall purpose of which is to produce a team that can profit through cable television and professional scouting. However, due to the rigorous excellence required of these athletes, many universities are still reluctant to set a salary for their athletes, who in many ways share the same responsibilities as a professional athlete with an annual salary. It is for this reason that so many students in these situations now refuse to accept only scholarships or financial aid, but now an actual paid salary, for their athletic abilities and the value they bring to their organization. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay For many people, the idea of ​​a stipend paid to college athletes may seem downright ridiculous, and on the surface for good reason. It is often known that student-athletes receive tremendous benefits from their institutions, such as, but not limited to, full-ride scholarships, free housing, and even free meals. It is because of these enormous benefits that any rational person might have a hard time accepting the idea of ​​adding a paid stipend to the long list of benefits. However, counter to this argument is the substantial popularity of the college football season in the United States, which is met with a huge season of games that capture the attention of fans nationwide. This level of attention given to college sports in the United States can match the enthusiasm and fan base of their professional league counterparts. These collegiate-level events not only draw huge crowds (reportedly as high as 100,000), but are also televised, followed by hundreds of thousands of devoted fans; also receiving endless scrutiny and publications in newspaper columns and sports radio shows. Barstool Sports, being one of the best examples, is a satirical news show about sports and college life, closely monitoring and reporting on college athletics. Even more fascinating is the fact that many student-athletes of this extraordinary caliber also balance full-time student study schedules that consume the entirety of their time, making the possibility of working completely out of the question. For many students, this may seem relatively inhumane, as such student-athletes will not even have time to work to earn an income to use outside of sports and academic life. This represents a complete injustice to the students who make televised sports appearances a reality for the institution. To make matters worse, there is also an inability to pay these students, due to the remarkably high level of intensity and interest in college sports like football and basketball. Likewise, this means that the NCAA, the primary nonprofit organization responsible for administering competition at the collegiate level, is swimming in the profits of the abilities of the student-athletes who make up the organization. According to CNN, this is further supported by disclosed revenues from broadcast rights and ticket sales which yielded an estimated valuearound $3 billion in 2014. Curiously, none of this revenue reaches the athletes themselves; by contrast, and to little surprise, the salaries of college coaches and NCAA employees are not capped. Additionally, this document is not the first call to action regarding the debate over whether or not to pay student-athletes as it is a commonly debated issue, with some individuals referencing whether sports at the collegiate level should be considered and treated as an amateur endeavor. However, similar to what has already been discussed, many people still choose to ignore the fact that college-level sports attract large amounts of attention and financial investment; However, many wonder where college athletics draws the line from playing sports at a school or university in other parts of the world. For this reason, such individuals argue that being part of a collegiate sports team is seen as part of the education for which these students pay their tuition, rather than as a semiprofessional job or career. However, the problem with those who take this view is that they ignore the ever-increasing costs of attending such universities. This is the result of the common misconception that all athletes graduate from college debt-free or study on a full financial scholarship. In many cases, particularly among students who lack the ability to participate professionally after college, many of these student-athletes are struggling financially. Likewise, most of the athletes who make up the NCAA come from disadvantaged, African-American, inner-city families; these poor families are sadly left to rely on loans to cover essential costs such as food and accommodation. Therefore, a serious injury or loss of composure could mean the difference between a professional sports career and a life full of debt. It is a clear fact that the racial gap is a major factor driving students to seek financial compensation for their services and expertise. As a result, the NCAA's growing revenue creates additional pressure to pay student-athletes. In 2016, NFL player Michael Bennett released a statement addressing student-athlete injustices to ESPN saying, “Hell yes, college players should get paid. The NCAA gets paid. The Rose Bowl is paid for. Everyone gets paid except the people who make the product. In some countries they call it slavery." While the comment made was not directly related to any competition, it speaks volumes about the negligence and misrepresentation of college athletes and the unfair compensation for their contributions. As previously mentioned, African American athletes make up the majority of athletes representing the NCAA and contribute to the marginalization of society, many are disproportionately affected by the decision not to pay student-athletes. This is further supported by a public survey conducted to gauge public support for paying college athletes. However, the poll revealed that while there is still a large majority in favor of paying student-athletes, many more African-American individuals supported the idea, while 43 percent of white respondents were against it. Not long after another study revealed that “views of blacks were the single strongest predictor of white opposition to paying athletes.” As such, racial prejudice was considered a stronger predictor than age, experience, political affiliation, and social class. This represents a critical and necessary awakening to the fact thatreluctance to fairly compensate college athletes is an immediate injustice, impeding the academic and social advancement of higher education in the United States. Tatishe Nteta, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and one of the study's authors, expanded on the study's findings, saying that the NCAA's founding is inherently still very biased towards minority representation within its organization. As such, this bias is impeding progress toward true equality and fair representation for student-athletes, as a result of marginalization by the organization itself. The fact is that student-athletes should receive a designated salary proportionally based on the skills those individuals bring to the organization. There is no reasonable nor valid objection as to why student-athletes at the collegiate level should not be paid for their participation. The collegiate sports scene is one of the most successful industries in the world, and it is still growing. As a result, such factors only serve to promote that college athletes have financial opportunities similar to those of their professional counterparts. Likewise, the main argument given to justify the lack of pay for college athletes is the lack of professional certification, which does not merit the salary. While the argument is based on narrow logic, it cannot defend the apparent greed of the NCAA, which derives enormous revenue from commercializing the skills and spectacle of student-athletes and uses it to its advantage. Many people would be baffled. to find that increasing the amount of money made from marketing college sports each year makes it dramatically more difficult for organizations to refuse payment to their players. This can be further supported through a Time article (Gregory 2018) by sports writer Sean Gregory, which talks about the eleven million dollar salary of Nick Saban, the head coach of the Alabama Crimson Tide football team, who earned $11 million last season, and assistant coaches make over $1 million. Such statistics make it difficult for any individual not to agree to pay players, even taking into account scholarships and exclusive privileges; however, it is not adequate considering the time, physical and emotional commitment each player is required to dedicate to their team. Furthermore, these benefits are not representative of the physical risk to each player, which could possibly be a career-ending injury at any point during the game. The loose safety regulation of each sport alone is incentive enough for players to receive revenue of some kind for their sacrifices for their schools. In a 2011 NCAA survey, it was stated that student-athletes average at least thirty hours of practice in a single week. , while others can even approach forty or more. As stated earlier in the paper, with a combination of enormous course work and the expectation to practice consistently as a full-time job, the ability to find free time to work for an income is virtually impossible. These requirements often quickly translate into restrictions that often cause more harm than good. There is no reason behind the lack of support for college athletes, as individuals who receive academic rather than athletic scholarships are still offered free tuition, as well as room and board; however, academic scholarship recipients often canafford the luxury of free time, in which they can also have time to work. Therefore, massive changes are needed to enable the future success of NCAA athletes, a first step being the ability for athletes to sign endorsement deals with brands like Nike and Adidas. Allowing sponsors to step in and offer financial aid to athletes would be a huge step forward, benefiting both players and companies at the same time. There are numerous examples of successful relationships between amateurs in every aspect and of sponsorship agreements, with mutual benefit for both parties. In sports in particular, major shoe manufacturers have been seen to constantly offer incentives to college athletes and/or even family members, as a way to convince them to attend certain popular universities. Establishing a path of legal freedom for students to establish brand endorsement deals with companies would help weaken the crippling poverty caused by the rising cost of education. To that end, by reforming the inequality of college athletes by allowing them to similarly market themselves for branding association and sponsorship, many students could be more likely to stay in school until graduation, while also enabling student-athletes with tremendous success to achieve financial success, which in turn would enable such students to support their families as they struggle to succeed. With the current situation of student-athletes in the NCAA, there is no foreseeable downside to allowing students legal freedom for financial ventures. Another ESPN article indirectly advocating the need for change. The article goes on to state that while the initial resentment and opposition towards fee-paying student-athletes may have initially made sense with scholarships and benefits, the instability for the NCAA to offer compensation is growing stronger. difficult to defend. This is evidenced by news of a blockbuster deal between the NCAA and Time Warner Cable with a total dollar valuation of $10.8 billion. The article states that while it would not be in anyone's best interest to distribute the funds equally or even pay every college athlete. However, what can be done is to create outlets for successful student-athletes to earn a salary throughout their time at a school and open up the possibility of cooperating in brand sponsorships. For many individuals, obtaining an athletic scholarship can be the key to realizing their dream of creating a better life for themselves and their families. As the NCAA is now, for many individuals these dreams can turn into living nightmares, especially when having to follow the harsh restrictions of the NCAA, as they oversee all athletic scholarships. Under current education law, student-athletes are prohibited from making personal financial gains during the course of their scholarship. As if that wasn't enough, the beneficiaries often come from families already in difficulty, who are required to cover the expenses necessary to make student life possible. Even more infuriating is the ability afforded to any college or university to reap enormous revenue from college sports by using the names, images, and abilities of their players for personal gain. There are many examples of universities thriving on the success of their athletic programs, with Syracuse University's athletics department setting a record $90 million in revenue from 2016-2017. What is more disconcerting is that Syracuse was not the only school, the University of Alabama's athletic revenue since 2013 from.