#rws600

                                             INTRODUCTION

            It has been a controversy on whether college athletes should get paid. Many think that they should because it is similar to a part time job and college athletes deserve to get paid, while others feel that they shouldn’t because their scholarships should be able to cover all their needs and tuition. A “Kobe Bryant Archive” image by Zamani Thomas, depicts this controversy, in which it shows that college students are being rewarded for their talent; in this picture the talent being basketball. In the article, “The College Athletes Worth 6 Figures: Report”, by Frederic J. Frommer emphasizes that college athletes should get more money beyond the required tuition or scholarship that has been given to them. This paper will focus mainly on the way both of these genres convey their message on the controversy of college athletes being paid.

                                    AUDIENCE AND PURPOSE

            The “Kobe Bryant Archive” by Zammani Thomas, is an image that was published on April 7, 2012. The authors’ purpose of this image is to persuade a specific discourse about what college athletes are seen to be or how people feel college athletes should be treated and seen as. It depends on the perspective of the viewer, the image can be positive or negative. The second genre, “The College Athletes Worth 6 Figures: Report”, by Fredric J. Frommer, is an article that was posted on September 12, 2011. Frommer’s purpose of this article is to persuade the specific discourse that college athletes should get paid for their outstanding and difficult work of being a student and an athlete. Both of the genres’ purpose is to persuade the audience of college athletes, even though one is more persuading through perspective and the other is persuading through information that might be useful to persuade the reader.

            In the “Kobe Bryant Archive”, the intended audience would be those who are interested in not only sports, but specifically college sports. This can be shown through visiting the site where the image could be found. This will bring anybody who is interested in reading about sport articles. The audience can also be those who are interested in the topic of college athletes getting paid, since it depicts dollar signs throughout the image with gifts and a tag saying “College” (Zammani, 2012) being the only vocabulary used. Since the image depicts Kobe Bryant, who is a famous basketball player, the intended audience can be those who are also fond with basketball and or the player himself. In the article, “The College Athletes Worth 6 Figures: Report,” the intended audience would be those who are well aware of the situation of college athletes getting paid. Also those who might be interested in college sports and agreeing to the fact that college athletes are better off getting paid would be more interested in reading this article than those who wouldn’t agree to this situation. In this article, the specialized vocabulary used, such as NCAA, Bowl Division and Division 1, are only understood by those who know about college sports, that is why it is used throughout the article. Both genres are trying to get their message across to those who are interested in this situation of college athletes being paid in general, the intended audience should already have a basic understanding of the situation through their information given.

         The two genres are obviously different, in a sense of the way they conveyed their message. Therefore they require different amount of times to be able to get their message across or deliver the information needed for the intended audience. In the first genre, the “Kobe Bryant Archive”, it will not take the audience very long to analyze the image. With its use of green color (money), and cartoonist image of Kobe Bryant, it will grab the audience’s attention, making them want to look at the image while easily being able to interpret it.  While the second genre, Frommer, the author of “The College Athletes Worth 6 Figures: Report”, wrote this article in a way that the audience will be able to understand the information that he is trying to get across. This will take a little bit more time for the audience to read through the information and fully understand the concept. Although, the both genres are getting the same information out they require a different amount of time to process the similar information.

            The language that each genre uses is different as well. The image is limited and it has no text besides the tag that says “College”. This might have been done because the author wanted it to be more visual and less textual. It’s formality is shown by not having an image that may be disturbing to the viewer; it is appealing in a sense that the audience will not be disturbed by it. On the other hand, the article was written in a way that is formal. The author does this so that way the audience doesn’t have a sense of detachment, when he formally discusses the opposing side, by writing, “’Dr. Emmert has been similarly clear that paying student-athletes a salary is in no way on the table,” the NCAA said.’” (Frommer, 2011). Instead of expressing how the author felt which might have been negative, he approached it formally and respectively by stating the opposing argument.

                                    RHETORICAL ISSUES

         Both genres illustrate all or some of the rhetorical issues, and they each have a different way of approaching these issues.

                                                ETHOS

           The image of Kobe Bryant is meant to represent college basketball athletes. This an example in which the image has credibility because, it uses a famous basketball player and people may feel since it is someone famous depicted in the image they will trust what the image is trying to convey is true. Also the image has a link to where it leads to the website where it has information of the image. The website may not have as much credibility because it is not an organization or a website from the government, but it does state the author of the image; Zammani Thomas, giving it credibility in that aspect. In the second genre, it has credibility in a way that is has an author; Frederic J. Frommer, and since this is a college article the author does have knowledge to where it is credible. The author cites and quotes from sources such as the NCAA and college athletes. These sources as people know are very credible especially coming from a non-profit organization that organizes athletic programs.

                                                 PATHOS

            The image conveys emotions of confidence and pride in which they are depicted as dollar signs and books throughout the image with the athlete wearing a cap and a diploma in his hand. The audience may have these emotions, because the athlete standing straight and tall with a cap and gown and whatever he needs around him, gives the impression that the athlete has nothing to worry about because he has it all. In the article, it talks about how some athletes are living under the poverty level; “That leaves students on full athletic scholarships living below the poverty line at around 85 percent of the schools, the report claims, by comparing the value of the scholarship’s room and board to the federal poverty guideline for a single individual”, (Frommer, 2011). The author does this not only to gain sympathy from the audience, but also as a way of persuasion. Also a college athlete was interviewed and stated, “I got by taking toilet paper and soap at hotels” (Frommer, 2011). This again gains sympathy from the audience because it shows how the athlete had to struggle to get what he needed because he wasn’t able to afford many things. Although the audience has to read the article and not know what the tone may be; some quotes show some type of emotion.

                                                LOGOS

             The image does not depict logos because it conveys more of emotion. It persuades the audience through visualizing the image, because images are limited to where they don’t depict words and more they let the audience interpret it visually. The second genre does convey logos in which as stated before about college athletes falling below the poverty level, it supports its claims by showing the percentage of college athletes at that level. Also when they informed the President of the NCAA, Mark Emmert, about the situation of college athletes not being able to afford school, and maybe raising their aid or giving them a salary, he opposed. This shows logos because the NCAA is a reliable source and therefore what they say must go throughout their organization.

                                    STRUCTURE AND DELIVERY

              The image is presented by showing the player in the center while holding his diploma and cap in one head. He is also surrounded by gifts such as basketballs, college books and dollar signs which most likely symbolizes money. This means because of his talent of playing basketball he is rewarded gifts such as money and getting college books, which goes hand in hand with a scholarship. This image has limitations to where it doesn’t have too much information, it is more focused on the image and the way it should be interpreted. The second genre, the article has a lot of information that may persuade the reader. It also grabs the audience attention right away in the beginning by starting with an argument. It not only informs the reader what the article may be about right away, but it also grabs their attention. Each genre has a specific structure to where they are able to persuade or inform the reader in a timely manner and not bore them. Although the image may be quickly informative through ones perspective, the article has information that involves more time, yet they both give the same information.

                                          CONCLUSION

           Although both genres give the same information, the second genre was more effective in the way it conveyed its information. The first genre was more difficult to interpret the information, because of the many different perspectives the mage can have. The second genre got straight to the point in which it persuaded with its pros against college athletes getting paid and informed the audience to the best of its ability by stating many facts to support their argument. The article was more easily interpreted. The controversy of college athletes getting paid was depicted through these genres, and in a way that they conveyed their message differently.

                                          References

Frommer, F. J. (2011, September 12). Top College Athletes Worth 6 Figures: Report. Retrieved September 11, 2014.

      The Genre Analysis has taught me how to analyze a piece of work into depth.  I learned how to figure out what the message that the genre is trying to convey and the way that specific genre conveys it. Each genre has a specific purpose on why they decided to portray the information given a certain way. For example my topic of “Should College Athletes Be Paid”, was portrayed in two genres such as an image and an article. Each of the genres had limitations in which they have a specific role to where they are able to portray the information. For the image it’s limited in a sense that it doesn’t have that many words and if it does its short and gets straight to the point. This would allow the viewer to interpret the image quickly. While in the article it is lengthier because it has much more information to give the reader. This will take the reader more time to interpret the information.

                                                  Abstract

            The NCAA is an organization that sees nearly most of the college sports. Before the NCAA was formed the debate of whether college athletes should be paid began during the first intercollegiate competition between Harvard and Yale Universities. The issue is based on people’s opinions and facts of the NCAA no pay policy of college athletes being compensated. Those who feel that college athletes should be paid, feel that they are treated like employees working similar to a full time job, and also not having enough money for necessities that they need. The people against the issue feel that they should be seen as student-athletes because education comes first then sports. They also feel that college athletes were aware of what the NCAA policy had to offer. The NCAA policy being that the student athletes have to remain in the state of amateurism and cannot take any kinds of pay. Those who do not abide to the policy, receive consequences such as getting their scholarships revoked and not participating in any NCAA sport. This paper also covers high-profile cases involving the NCAA. Under the protection of some laws, the NCAA can argue against these cases. A survey was also taken by 50 participants and the results were later analyzed to view who was and wasn’t interested in college athletes being paid. Based on the results it was determined how the situation would be affected.

                                               Introduction

     In the late 1800’s football was a sport that was enjoyed by many and was played by mostly college athletes. During the time periods of 1900 to 1905, there were about 45 players who had fatal accidents playing the sport. Due to these accidents President Theodore Roosevelt threatened to ban the sport unless the sport was better modified. That is when a group of 62 university presidents came together to form the Intercollegiate Athletic Association (IAA), a year after the accidents. The group evolved into the NCAA in 1910, and only had supervisory power (Johnson & Acquaviva, 2012). “The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) oversees nearly every aspect of the $11 billion college sports industry. Its powers include scheduling championship events, determining eligibility rules, entering into commercial contracts, and punishing members that refuse to follow its authority” (Edelman, 2013). Before the NCAA was formed, according to the Sport Journal, the idea of paying athletes dates back to the first intercollegiate competition against Harvard and Yale Universities. Harvard had used a non-student to sponsor and make money off of him (Johnson & Acquaviva, 2012).

    The debate on whether college athletes should be paid still has been going on since the early 1900’s. This issue goes a long way to where there are some people who are for it and others against the issue. The National Collegiate Athletic Association or as many know it as the NCAA, has a big role in this situation to where they have the say of deciding whether college athletes are to be paid. According to the Sport Journal, because of the “current television revenue resulting from NCAA football bowl games and March Madness in basketball, there is now a clamoring for compensating both football and basketball players beyond that of an athletic scholarship” (Johnson & Acquaviva). Due to the agreement or disagreement that the NCAA holds, many have opposed the decision and have rebelled against it. The debate of college athletes being paid will also have an effect on the college athlete’s status of being amateurs. In the words of the National Collegiate Athletic Association the definition of amateurism is a player who participates in a competitive physical sport for the pleasure and does not take pay for competing in the physical sport (NCAA, 2012). For these reasons the debate of college athletes being paid will continue, therefore this paper will come to a close understanding by being reviewed through these questions:

Why should or shouldn’t college athletes be paid?

 What is the NCAA policy on college athletes being paid and the consequences of not following the policy?

Are there any high-profile cases involving NCAA and the college athletes over the debate of college athletes being paid? What are their reasons?

Who is interested and not interested in college athletes being paid and how does this affect the issue?

With these questions it will help narrow down the purpose of this literature review by knowing the reasons why college athletes should or shouldn’t be getting paid, the NCAA policy, cases involving the NCAA and the athletes, and how this issue is affected by those interested and not interested over this debate.

                     Why should or shouldn’t College athletes be paid?

            The issue of college athletes being paid has been looked at from both perspectives to have a clear understanding on what is going on with this debate. Those who are for this issue argue that college athletes should get paid because it is basically like an American full-time job, spending almost 40 hours on their sport (Gregory, 2013). According to Knowledge@Wharton, college athletes, “work long hours, report to an unusually demanding boss and risk significant bodily harm in bringing glory to their institutions. And yet the result of all this is not a paycheck, but a bill” (“At Risk: Are”, 2014). This all sounds like college athletes are less of students and more of an employee under the supervision of their coaches, but without compensation. The athletes are the ones bringing all the money and fame in to the university and they do not see a bit of the revenues.

 Another reason why some people think college athletes deserve to be paid is because, many feel that these students have scholarships and that should be able to cover all their expenses. Many athletes do not get a full ride scholarships and many are unaware that their scholarships can also be revoked. This means that if they do not perform well they can be kicked off the team and the college or university that they attend. [The NCAA want people to believe that they are “Student-athletes”, but in reality they are seen more as “Athlete-Students”, in which they spend more time playing the sport and less time in academics. As mentioned these athletes are participating in a full time job while going to school and deserve to be paid more than the scholarships given. Gregory states that “athletes are often short a few thousand bucks for ancillary expenses on top of tuition, room and board, books and fees: money for gas, shampoo and, yes, maybe a few beers. Some athletes are on only partial scholarship or are walk-ons still paying full tuition” and this is with most full-ride scholarships] (Gregory, 2013).The Knowledge@Wharton article called the scholarships, a quid pro quo, in which they offer a student a scholarship and in return the student athletes play the sport for the university (“At Risk: Are”, 2014). Although, most college athletes are offered either a full-ride or partial scholarship, many still believe that they still deserve to be paid if they are treated more like employees. They also have needs that most athletes may not be able to afford.

     On the other hand, the opposing side feels that those who are for the issue are more concentrated in paying the athletes with little acknowledgement of the athletes education. According to the Sport Journal, paying the student athletes will go against the primary reason of attending a university which is education, that being more valuable than compensation, as many look forward to (Johnson & Acquaviva, 2012). Those against the issue also argue that student-athletes should not be considered as employees but rather they are students first and athletes second. As the Sport Journal states that most universities can make profit from all the sports programs, and those that do, most of the money goes back into the athletic programs to fund those sports who bring no revenue at all or only just a few revenue (Johnson & Acquaviva, 2012). Therefore, the money that is made is not kept for the university as the ones for this issue think, it is used wisely and is distributed to the rest of the sport programs. Before becoming a college athlete they already knew what was to be expected from the scholarships that they were given. According to the Sports Journal, each role of the participants are very clear when they sign the full-scholarship papers and states that: “Schools accept the responsibility of the student’s tuition, meal plan, and boarding, while the athlete is provided with the opportunity to earn a degree, engage in college life and play their favorite sport in a well-organized, and often high profile fashion” (Johnson & Acquaviva, 2012). This gives the athletes no excuse because they obviously knew what they were in for. The documents may have been lengthy and some athletes may have just skimmed through it, but it was clearly stated otherwise. As a result those who are against this debate, look at paying athletes as a distraction in which they feel that education should be first. Other than that they feel that student athlete’s amateurism should be kept.

Both perspectives are contradictory, but yet they both have a reasonable opinion on their stance of being for or against paying college athletes. The literature briefly stated the reasons why college athletes should or shouldn’t be paid through a review.

         What is the NCAA policy on college athletes being paid and                       the consequences of not following the policy?

This then brings us to the next question of what exactly is the NCAA’s policy on college athletes being paid. According to the NCAA regulations of Division 1, the student athletes have to remain in the state of amateurism in all sports that they part take in. This means that they won’t be eligible in participating in the sport if they have (1) “Taken pay, or the promise of pay, for competing in that sport.” (2) “Agreed (orally or in writing) to compete in professional athletics in that sport” (3) “Played on any professional athletics team as defined by the NCAA in that sport” and (4) “Used your athletics skill for pay in any form in that sport” (NCAA, 2012). This clearly states that the NCAA does not allow for the compensation of college athletes because then it takes away their role of an amateur. They are also not allowed to be employed on or off campus, because their publicity and reputation.

Many have rebelled against the policy of the NCAA. The NCAA have strict penalties for those who do not follow their regulations of paying college athletes or promoting fame for the athletes in return of gaining wealth. Such penalties include; fines, the loss of appearing on television, not being allowed to participate in a season game, and the most severe one, the death penalty. The NCAA death penalty, “empowers the association to shut down any repeat violator’s athletic program during regular-season competition” (Edelman, 2013). An example of the death penalty can been seen when the NCAA used it against the Southern Methodist University football program during the 1987 athletic season. As a result the university had a loss of football related revenues not only for that season but also for some years that followed (Edelman, 2013). This piece of review demonstrates that the consequences are severe when it comes to wanting to remain a college athlete, and keep the benefits that the National Collegiate Athletic Association offers.

Are there any high-profile cases involving NCAA and the college athletes over the debate of college athletes being paid? What are their reasons?

            According to Knowledge@Wharton,  the issue of college athletes being paid is rising due to the fact of two high profile cases. The Northwestern University football players, petitioned the National Labor Relations Board to form a union with the help of the United Steelworkers. Their goal is to open doors for similar organizing drives Nationwide. Northwestern Wildcats quarterback Kain Colter commented, “How can they call this amateur athletics when our jerseys are sold in stores and the money we generate turns coaches and commissioners into multimillionaires?” at a press conference in January (“At Risk: Are”, 2014). The second case brought up was pertaining to Ed O’Bannon, a former UCLA basketball power forward. He brought a class-action antitrust lawsuit, after the start of a June trial against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Ed O’Bannon asked the jury to strike down the NCAA restrictions on college athletes being able to earn money for their names and their own likeness. The reason for these cases according to the article of Knowledge@Wharton is because they wanted to raise “consciousness about the hundreds of millions of dollars being made around college athletics by TV networks, coaches, associations like the NCAA and colleges and universities — in other words, everyone but the actual talent” (“At Risk: Are”, 2014).  

            During the Ed O’Bannon trial, the National Collegiate Athletic Association gathered some witnesses that confirmed that the idea of paying players would make schools have to choose between pursuing the best players and cutting programs for other student athletes, according to the article Knowledge@Wharton (“At Risk: Are”, 2014).  The commentators of this article also state that paying male athletes and not female athletes may be illegal under the Title IX law. According to the Title IX and Sex Discrimination (1998) article, “Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities which receive Federal financial assistance” and states that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”. With the Northwestern University case the layers of the university argued that the athletes are “students not employees,” but couldn’t make and changes due to the NCAA regulations of not paying college athletes (“At Risk: Are”, 2014).

            The literature provided some cases to where the NCAA and college athletes were involved. As it reviewed it states the reasons why these cases were presented.

                Who is interested and not interested in college                           athletes being paid and how does this affect the issue?

       A survey that was taken by about 50 online and on campus people was analyzed to see who would or wouldn’t be most interested in college athletes based on age and gender. This survey was conducted with a total of six questions, and with two questions only being relevant to the research. Based on the results it will determine how it will affect the issue of college athletes being paid or not. The survey was then taken by anybody who was 18+. It was posted on social media so many people had the opportunity to take it. Classmates who attended the University of El Paso Texas also took the survey along with other students who attended the same university. Based on the survey those who were most interested in college athletes being paid were those between the ages of 18 and 24. These are people who would most likely be attending college, while the age group of 46+ are the ones who are least interested in college athletes being paid. Based on the survey Females were more interested in college sports than males who took the survey.

About 64.58% of the people who took the survey don’t know the policy of the NCAA “no pay” rule (Survey Monkey, 2014). This can affect the perspective of peoples view on whether being for or against the debate of college athletes being paid. Those who understand the policy would be able to decide if the NCAA policy makes sense based on their knowledgeable opinions. Also the people who took the survey were mostly interested in watching college Basketball and Football. The way that basketball and football are the most popular sports, according to ESPN College Sports (2014), the student athletes are in for a big pay and unfortunately will change the way the NCAA will do business. This can also lead back to the Title IX and Sex Discrimination (1998) article, where it would discriminate gender and other activities. This survey provides feedback on who would be most and less interested in the debate of college athletes being paid. The feedback also lead to how it would affect the issue under certain circumstances.

                                              Conclusion

            The issue and debate of college athletes being paid has been going on for some time and will continue until an agreement is made. This paper has introduced many information and has answered questions over the debate with the use of different literature. The NCAA being introduced in the 1900’s still went through the debate, making people form opinions on the situation. Those for the issue looked at the necessities that the student athletes need, and those against the issue looked at education being a priority. Also the NCAA was involved high-profile cases, but there were also laws that defended the NCAA statements toward college athletes being paid. The survey taken by people showed who was and wasn’t interested in this debate and how it affected the situation. This paper has introduced information needed to answer these questions over the debate with the use of the different literature. 

                                        References

At Risk: Are Unpaid College Athletes Exploited While Others Reap Millions? Knowledge@Wharton. (2014, March 19). Retrieved October 19, 2014.

Edelman, M. (2013). A Short Treatise On Amateurism And Antitrust Law: Why The NCAA’s

No-Pay Rules Violate Section 1 Of The Sherman Act. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 64(1), 61-99.

Farrey, T. (2014, August 9). Judge Rules Against NCAA. Retrieved November 2, 2014.

Gregory, S. (2013). Should This Kid Be Making $225,047 A Year for Playing College Football?.Time, 182(12), 36.

Johnson, D., & Acquaviva, J. (2012, June 15). Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes. Sport Journal. Retrieved October 24, 2014.

NCAA. Summary of NCAA Regulations-NCAA Division I. (2011-2012). Retrieved October 19, 2014.

Survey. Survey Monkey. (2014) Should College Athletes Be Paid.

The documentary was another difficult assignment for not only me, but as a group. Since our topic was over if college athletes should be paid, we had to pick a side even though we each had our own opinions. When we finally came to an agreement, we decided on our advocacy for our topic in the documentary. The purpose of this documentary as mentioned was to advocate for something over the topic given, based on the research we found. The reason why a documentary was created in a form of a video instead of a written paper, was so that we are able to see how different genres can portray the same information in a different form. When promoting for advocacy you have to take into consideration the different rhetorical appeals. The ethos will present the credibility of the advocacy, the pathos will promote an emotion and logos will demonstrate some logic. The rhetorical appeals that we used were mainly ethos and pathos. We established credibility by giving credit to the information that we found and the people that we interviewed, and applying pathos for a way of persuading our audience.

                                    No-Pay Must Change

          The debate on whether college athletes should be paid or not has been going on for the longest time. It all started with the first intercollegiate competition against the two big Universities, Harvard and Yale. The issue was that Harvard used a non-student to sponsor and make money off of him, thus leading to the controversy of paying student athletes (Johnson & Acquaviva, 2012). This debate will continue to be disputed, until a change is made. This then brings us to the question; should these college athletes be paid and the answer is simple they should.

            Being a college athlete is difficult for one; they put in many hours of hard work in to their sport and are still dedicated to their school work, determined to also get a degree. Gregory (2013) from Time magazine mentions that student-athletes are basically working an American full-time job, putting about forty hours in to their sport, but the downside is that they are not receiving any compensation for it. There isn’t a clear understanding on why they shouldn’t, these athletes give their all and bring glory to their university, and in return they only receive an applause from the school, coaches, and fans. They should receive more than just a pat on their back, a little money in their pocket will only give the student-athletes the acknowledgement that they deserve.

            Many believe that all college athletes receive scholarships and that it should be enough to cover all their expenses. In reality, it is not all true, many student athletes don’t get full ride scholarships, and people are unaware that if they are on scholarships, their scholarship can get revoked if they do not perform well in their sport. Gregory (2013) also mentions that “athletes are often short a few bucks for ancillary expenses on top of tuition, room, and board, books and fees: money for gas, shampoo and other necessities. Some athletes are on only partial scholarship or walk-ons still paying full tuition” and this is with most full ride scholarships. This shows that student athletes need a little more on top of their scholarship, so that they are able to provide for themselves. Those without scholarships probably have responsibilities outside their school and sport; they would probably also be thankful for a little extra in their pocket.

            If it wasn’t for these talented athletes what would the school be known for? They bring in not only fame and glory to the schools, but also a large amount of revenues. Johnson and Acquaviva (2012) mentions that “an athlete can earn the university somewhere between $500,000 for football and about $1.422 million in basketball, leading to a pseudo – plantation system where the coaches oversee the athletes demanding work and controlling their schedules on and off the field. They also mention that the NCAA functions like a cartel, keeping cost down while increasing profits.” Athletes must get paid some way or another.

                          (College athletes need a voice.)

           If Universities are not willing to pay college athletes from the revenues that they make they should at least be able to get paid through their likenesses or images. Most college athletes are always getting interviewed on television and even put into video games, but are not getting anything from the promotion of their names and images. Although the NCAA policy says that student-athletes are not allowed to receive any kind of compensation, according to CNN investigator Ganim (2013), states that a judge commented that the NCAA’s policy of college athletes being paid is a violation of the antitrust law, in which it violates fair competition in an open-market economy. This will then be taken to the courts to where they will settle a fair amount of money that college athletes should receive. Ganim (2013) states that the judge would rule $5,000 being a fair amount to pay college athletes for their images and likenesses. It is not an exceedingly amount of money to where they are not considered amateurs. Although many may feel that paying athletes will draw the fans away because they are no longer amateurs, it is not true “fans come for the tradition not the amateurism” (Ganim 2013).

            This solution would work for all college sports, there are many fans willing to have the athlete’s jerseys and images, and giving the student-athletes a profit from that will work out perfectly for both the university and the athletes. Athletes won’t worry now about not having enough money in their pockets. Their voices are heard.

                                              References

Ganim, S. (1970, January 1). The College-Athlete Pay Case That Nearly   Didn’t Happen. CNN  U.S. Retrieved December 3, 2014.

Gregory, S. (2013). Should This Kid Be Making $225,047 A Year for Playing College Football?.Time, 182(12), 36.