Federal 1125 A 1120 2012: Fill & Download for Free

I actually just wrote a college essay on this topic. Here it is.All the Hype, But an Exploited Employee NeverthelessCollege sports are a way of life for millions of people across the United States. It is a way of life for hard-core fans and especially important for alumni who have a great affinity to their alma mater. Alumni play an important part in the financial success of a university and its endowment through contributions reinforcing the importance of athletic program success. Backed by extremely generous and dedicated alumni, athletic departments within the Southeastern Conference (SEC) “received more than $25 million in donations in 2011” (Gray, 1120). Alumni that collectively fund large amounts of money to a university, helps fund and maintains a highly competitive atmosphere by enabling the athletic department to dedicate resources that would normally not be available.The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a non-profit organization the regulates the athletics of more than 1,200 universities and conferences and nearly 500,000 student-athletes across three divisions of men’s and women’s athletics in the North America. In 2012, the NCAA brought in $871.6 million in revenue (Vanderford, 805) from broadcast rights and other licensing agreements. The proliferation of football bowl games and national championships draws millions of fans which has dramatically increased the amount of revenue generated by the NCAA, college conferences and universities, respectively particularly from television broadcast rights and licensing agreements. Division I athletics is considered to be a business; a business that is now estimated (2011) to be a $8 billion annual revenue industry (Gray, 1120).These are astonishing numbers for educational institutions that recruit “amateur” athletes that by definition are not allowed to receive any compensation for their athletic efforts. Despite the fact that athletes are prohibited from receiving compensation, they are bound to the requirements of participating in a sport that requires substantial time, commitment and dedication which in effect is a job, particularly in Division I sports. This raises the important question; should student-athletes be considered employees and therefore be paid for their labor and the revenue that their universities earn as a result? This is a critical question to consider, as well as the examination of the NCAA policies that create an environment of disproportional pay. In order to assess this dilemma, the current circumstances and understanding of how the NCAA and big time Division I athletics needs to be examined.The National Collegiate Athletic Association promotes and encourages high school athletes to pursue a college education and participation in college athletics through the premise of amateurism. An amateur, under the guidelines of the NCAA, is an individual that does not receive pay for their contributions in regard to athletic participation. In addition, if “a student-athlete accepts payment for the promise of athletic participation they automatically forfeit his or her amateur status” (Gray, 1121). Thus, any pay received by college athletes would turn the college atmosphere of athletics into something similar to a minor league program (Gray, 1129). The NCAA claims its primary focus is on developing student-athletes in regard to their academic well-being and success. Despite the well intentions of this notion of furthering education over athletic pursuits, there are contradictory actions being taken by universities under the NCAA’s guidelines when it comes to scholarships, and the NCAA itself.It is widely known that universities regularly award high school students scholarships to pursue an advancement in their athletic ability under the agreement that there will be no pay. Although, the university may offer a student-athlete money that corresponds with the cost of attending that university. The cost of attending cannot exceed tuition, room and board, books and out of pocket expenses (Gray, 1127). The offering of an athletic scholarship that only covers educational and common expenses is, in itself contradictory to the main goals of the NCAA. There is a discrepancy between why the student-athlete is receiving the scholarship that is based off their athletic ability and what they can actually use the scholarship money for which are academic expenses. In other words, “[scholarships] transparently serve as compensation for athletic services” performed by student-athletes (McCormick, 117). Despite this apparent conflict, it appears that the NCAA does not view this dilemma as an issue and has not publicly debated alternatives to address it or suggest alternatives.Under the NCAA’s terms and policies players are not considered professionals, yet the coaches for the most prominent athletic programs earn salaries that are market based and often rival what professional coaches are paid. While the capabilities of the coaching staff are important factors contributing to the success of a college team, the abilities and performance of the players are equally, if not more, important since the players have to face the competition and execute at a high level needed to beat the competition. Coaches at major Division I schools receive significant pay, and those who are known to train successful teams often get much more pay as a reward. But what about the players? The players are the sole creators and talent and provide the entertainment factor for their respective sports which the NCAA sells as a product for their financial gain.Regardless of how well a program does, the only group that “is denied the full financial fruit of the bountiful enterprise known as [high level] college sports” are the ones competing (McCormick, 76). The NCAA clearly states that student-athletes are not allowed to have a share in the revenue of their university’s athletic program (Gray, 1118), but the athletes deserve sharing a “just proportion of the fruits of their toil” (McCormick, 78). If athletes were allowed to share revenue, this would sacrifice the NCAA’s key principle of amateur athletics.But all this might change in the near future. It was recently found in a California federal district court that the NCAA had violated federal antitrust law in regard to one of their policies of revenue sharing. The court found NCAA rules that prohibit “student-athletes from receiving a share of revenue earned through use of their names, images, and likenesses (NIL) violated federal antitrust law.” The court did not demand the NCAA “grant student-athletes a NIL revenue share or a cost-of-attendance stipend, but if universities wished, they would now have the option to do so” (Gray, 1118). Following an appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court supported the Rule of Reason stating the requirement that NCAA schools provide up to the cost-of-attendance to student-athletes, but not more (Gray, 1119). The cost of attendance is considered “the out of pocket expenses incurred by a student-athlete at his or her university, going beyond standard scholarships that cover only tuition, room and board and books” (Gray, 1127). This is a big step in the fight for fair compensation for student-athletes, but one has to consider that fact that major Division I athletes are still not receiving a reasonable share of the value they create and therefore are being taken advantage of.Under the National Labor Relations Act, “the relationship between scholarship athletes and their colleges and universities can no longer be fairly characterized as anything other than an employment relationship in which the athletes serve as employees and the institutions for which they labor as their employers” (McCormick, 79). “Student-athlete” was a term that was established by the NCAA 50 years ago (McCormick, 73) and it is still vastly used today. The perpetual use of this term is an important factor which has created the current state where student-athletes are under valued. As a result, athletes do not reap the benefits of the massive revenues created by Division I college sports. It is important to evaluate and understand that the NCAA has the capability to financially support itself “entirely by the revenues generated from the sports activities of …” colleges and universities under their control. According to the NCAA’s audited financial statement, they generated almost $1.1 billion in revenue in 2017 largely from significant increases in broadcast and marketing fees (Berkowitz).The creation of the term student-athlete by the NCAA is “a clear effort to shift the characterization of players away from an ‘employee’ status…and [the NCAA] required intuitions and the media to use the term ‘student-athlete’ in a long term “…public relations campaign to persuade the public that these athletes [were] students, not employees” (Vanderford, 808). By persuading the public that student-athletes were and are not employees, this has allowed “…the NCAA and its members…like no other association of institutions or businesses in [the United States] to employ one type of labor without paying a competitive wage for it” (McCormick, 75). This is, but will not be the last time an employer will try to exploit their workers, in order to maximize profits (Vanderford, 806).There have been attempts by student-athletes to challenge the NCAA. In 2014 the Northwestern football team made an effort to unionize with the goal to challenge the NCAA to provide more rights and benefits to student-athletes (Nocera & Strauss). This effort gained a tremendous amount of media coverage given the significance of this initiative. Initially there was unanimous support amongst the players to pursue this, however over time the group began to divide and some players opposed the effort. Some players were concerned about retribution from coaches, the school and the NCAA that would be detrimental to their athletic careers. In the end the effort to unionize failed.While there have been some changes and steps in the right direction to treat players more fairly and reasonably from a financial perspective, there continues to be a lot of work to be done to ensure this. There are several possibilities to consider, while at the same time preserving the purpose and importance of academia at the college level. Reaching the right balance between the financial aspects of college sports and the mission of higher education is a complex endeavor.One possibility that preserves this balance would be for student-athletes across all sports, at a specific university, to receive equal pay at a base level. The teams at a particular university that are the primary contributors to the revenue stream of the athletic department would receive incrementally more pay. This could be based on a formula that allows for higher value teams to be paid slightly more than others (Gray, 1131), while ensuring that other athletic programs do not suffer. The amount allocated to a team which would be distributed evenly could be further increased from “the commercial use of their names, images and likenesses” according to a Supreme Court ruling (Gray, 1125). The current model the NCAA has imposed bylaws that indicate “[a]thletes unlike any other working people are not free to spend their limited wages where they choose but must spend them on college tuition, books and other institutionally related expenses regardless of their real needs or those of their families” (McCormick, 79). This proposal would give options how student-athletes want to spend the money. Although, to ensure that players are not considered professional, and preserve the NCAA’s notion of amateurism, the funds will be put into a long-term savings account for the student-athlete. The student-athlete would not have access to the funds, until 5 years after eligibility ends. This further ensures the student-athlete is not receiving pay at the time they are competing. This increase in cost would be mostly covered by the NCAA and conferences that already distribute revenues to their members (McCormick, 132). This possibility might influence student-athletes to stay and finish their degree instead of going professional. This enforces the importance of obtaining a degree in the event of a career ending injury, which might cause financial hardship in the future. If a student-athlete has a college degree, he or she could utilize it to pursue a job outside of professional sports. There is a need to modernize the current structure of college athletics. The amount of revenue generated by college athletes is significant, and continues to grow. There is a large “disparity between the revenue generated and what the players receive as compensation” as the “business of college athletics continues to grow exponentially” (Vanderford, 806). Continued growth in revenue can potentially encourage athletes, coaches and universities to violate more serious NCAA bylaws, reinforcing the need to address this issue. This is a complex issue with many competing agendas. Division I athletics is a big business and the financial aspects are a significant aspect of the financial condition and funding of many large private and public universities. “The big money sports--football and men's basketball-- are big business, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. There is something wrong with the fact that the players aren't paid what they're worth. As the economist Damon Jones (a Stanford grad) put it on Twitter, ‘You demand professionalism, pay professional salaries.’” (Carden). Carden’s view is extreme in that he suggests that athletes be paid based on their true value just as professional athletes are paid. This solution would make it difficult to maintain the proper balance between fair pay for student-athletes and maintaining the concept of an amateur athlete.Finding an equitable solution that brings this balance closer together is necessary to protect student-athletes, while at the same time allowing the NCAA and colleges to financially benefit from their athletic programs. Universities often use programs that bring in large amounts of revenue to help fund other athletic programs, which is important to preserve. This model would help ensure funding is not lost for smaller programs, while encompassing more reasonably fair compensation for athletes and preserving the NCAA’s stance on amateurism. As a result, the importance of higher education is not compromised.

This is college essay I’ve written on the topic, this past summer (2018). Not for reproduction. Please let me know what you think.All the Hype, But an Exploited Employee NeverthelessCollege sports are a way of life for millions of people across the United States. It is a way of life for hard-core fans and especially important for alumni who have a great affinity to their alma mater. Alumni play an important part in the financial success of a university and its endowment through contributions reinforcing the importance of athletic program success. Backed by extremely generous and dedicated alumni, athletic departments within the Southeastern Conference (SEC) “received more than $25 million in donations in 2011” (Gray, 1120). Alumni that collectively fund large amounts of money to a university, helps fund and maintains a highly competitive atmosphere by enabling the athletic department to dedicate resources that would normally not be available.The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a non-profit organization the regulates the athletics of more than 1,200 universities and conferences and nearly 500,000 student-athletes across three divisions of men’s and women’s athletics in the North America. In 2012, the NCAA brought in $871.6 million in revenue (Vanderford, 805) from broadcast rights and other licensing agreements. The proliferation of football bowl games and national championships draws millions of fans which has dramatically increased the amount of revenue generated by the NCAA, college conferences and universities, respectively particularly from television broadcast rights and licensing agreements. Division I athletics is considered to be a business; a business that is now estimated (2011) to be a $8 billion annual revenue industry (Gray, 1120).These are astonishing numbers for educational institutions that recruit “amateur” athletes that by definition are not allowed to receive any compensation for their athletic efforts. Despite the fact that athletes are prohibited from receiving compensation, they are bound to the requirements of participating in a sport that requires substantial time, commitment and dedication which in effect is a job, particularly in Division I sports. This raises the important question; should student-athletes be considered employees and therefore be paid for their labor and the revenue that their universities earn as a result? This is a critical question to consider, as well as the examination of the NCAA policies that create an environment of disproportional pay. In order to assess this dilemma, the current circumstances and understanding of how the NCAA and big time Division I athletics needs to be examined.The National Collegiate Athletic Association promotes and encourages high school athletes to pursue a college education and participation in college athletics through the premise of amateurism. An amateur, under the guidelines of the NCAA, is an individual that does not receive pay for their contributions in regard to athletic participation. In addition, if “a student-athlete accepts payment for the promise of athletic participation they automatically forfeit his or her amateur status” (Gray, 1121). Thus, any pay received by college athletes would turn the college atmosphere of athletics into something similar to a minor league program (Gray, 1129). The NCAA claims its primary focus is on developing student-athletes in regard to their academic well-being and success. Despite the well intentions of this notion of furthering education over athletic pursuits, there are contradictory actions being taken by universities under the NCAA’s guidelines when it comes to scholarships, and the NCAA itself.It is widely known that universities regularly award high school students scholarships to pursue an advancement in their athletic ability under the agreement that there will be no pay. Although, the university may offer a student-athlete money that corresponds with the cost of attending that university. The cost of attending cannot exceed tuition, room and board, books and out of pocket expenses (Gray, 1127). The offering of an athletic scholarship that only covers educational and common expenses is, in itself contradictory to the main goals of the NCAA. There is a discrepancy between why the student-athlete is receiving the scholarship that is based off their athletic ability and what they can actually use the scholarship money for which are academic expenses. In other words, “[scholarships] transparently serve as compensation for athletic services” performed by student-athletes (McCormick, 117). Despite this apparent conflict, it appears that the NCAA does not view this dilemma as an issue and has not publicly debated alternatives to address it or suggest alternatives.Under the NCAA’s terms and policies players are not considered professionals, yet the coaches for the most prominent athletic programs earn salaries that are market based and often rival what professional coaches are paid. While the capabilities of the coaching staff are important factors contributing to the success of a college team, the abilities and performance of the players are equally, if not more, important since the players have to face the competition and execute at a high level needed to beat the competition. Coaches at major Division I schools receive significant pay, and those who are known to train successful teams often get much more pay as a reward. But what about the players? The players are the sole creators and talent and provide the entertainment factor for their respective sports which the NCAA sells as a product for their financial gain.Regardless of how well a program does, the only group that “is denied the full financial fruit of the bountiful enterprise known as [high level] college sports” are the ones competing (McCormick, 76). The NCAA clearly states that student-athletes are not allowed to have a share in the revenue of their university’s athletic program (Gray, 1118), but the athletes deserve sharing a “just proportion of the fruits of their toil” (McCormick, 78). If athletes were allowed to share revenue, this would sacrifice the NCAA’s key principle of amateur athletics.But all this might change in the near future. It was recently found in a California federal district court that the NCAA had violated federal antitrust law in regard to one of their policies of revenue sharing. The court found NCAA rules that prohibit “student-athletes from receiving a share of revenue earned through use of their names, images, and likenesses (NIL) violated federal antitrust law.” The court did not demand the NCAA “grant student-athletes a NIL revenue share or a cost-of-attendance stipend, but if universities wished, they would now have the option to do so” (Gray, 1118). Following an appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court supported the Rule of Reason stating the requirement that NCAA schools provide up to the cost-of-attendance to student-athletes, but not more (Gray, 1119). The cost of attendance is considered “the out of pocket expenses incurred by a student-athlete at his or her university, going beyond standard scholarships that cover only tuition, room and board and books” (Gray, 1127). This is a big step in the fight for fair compensation for student-athletes, but one has to consider that fact that major Division I athletes are still not receiving a reasonable share of the value they create and therefore are being taken advantage of.Under the National Labor Relations Act, “the relationship between scholarship athletes and their colleges and universities can no longer be fairly characterized as anything other than an employment relationship in which the athletes serve as employees and the institutions for which they labor as their employers” (McCormick, 79). “Student-athlete” was a term that was established by the NCAA 50 years ago (McCormick, 73) and it is still vastly used today. The perpetual use of this term is an important factor which has created the current state where student-athletes are under valued. As a result, athletes do not reap the benefits of the massive revenues created by Division I college sports. It is important to evaluate and understand that the NCAA has the capability to financially support itself “entirely by the revenues generated from the sports activities of …” colleges and universities under their control. According to the NCAA’s audited financial statement, they generated almost $1.1 billion in revenue in 2017 largely from significant increases in broadcast and marketing fees (Berkowitz).The creation of the term student-athlete by the NCAA is “a clear effort to shift the characterization of players away from an ‘employee’ status…and [the NCAA] required intuitions and the media to use the term ‘student-athlete’ in a long term “…public relations campaign to persuade the public that these athletes [were] students, not employees” (Vanderford, 808). By persuading the public that student-athletes were and are not employees, this has allowed “…the NCAA and its members…like no other association of institutions or businesses in [the United States] to employ one type of labor without paying a competitive wage for it” (McCormick, 75). This is, but will not be the last time an employer will try to exploit their workers, in order to maximize profits (Vanderford, 806).There have been attempts by student-athletes to challenge the NCAA. In 2014 the Northwestern football team made an effort to unionize with the goal to challenge the NCAA to provide more rights and benefits to student-athletes (Nocera & Strauss). This effort gained a tremendous amount of media coverage given the significance of this initiative. Initially there was unanimous support amongst the players to pursue this, however over time the group began to divide and some players opposed the effort. Some players were concerned about retribution from coaches, the school and the NCAA that would be detrimental to their athletic careers. In the end the effort to unionize failed.While there have been some changes and steps in the right direction to treat players more fairly and reasonably from a financial perspective, there continues to be a lot of work to be done to ensure this. There are several possibilities to consider, while at the same time preserving the purpose and importance of academia at the college level. Reaching the right balance between the financial aspects of college sports and the mission of higher education is a complex endeavor.One possibility that preserves this balance would be for student-athletes across all sports, at a specific university, to receive equal pay at a base level. The teams at a particular university that are the primary contributors to the revenue stream of the athletic department would receive incrementally more pay. This could be based on a formula that allows for higher value teams to be paid slightly more than others (Gray, 1131), while ensuring that other athletic programs do not suffer. The amount allocated to a team which would be distributed evenly could be further increased from “the commercial use of their names, images and likenesses” according to a Supreme Court ruling (Gray, 1125). The current model the NCAA has imposed bylaws that indicate “[a]thletes unlike any other working people are not free to spend their limited wages where they choose but must spend them on college tuition, books and other institutionally related expenses regardless of their real needs or those of their families” (McCormick, 79). This proposal would give options how student-athletes want to spend the money. Although, to ensure that players are not considered professional, and preserve the NCAA’s notion of amateurism, the funds will be put into a long-term savings account for the student-athlete. The student-athlete would not have access to the funds, until 5 years after eligibility ends. This further ensures the student-athlete is not receiving pay at the time they are competing. This increase in cost would be mostly covered by the NCAA and conferences that already distribute revenues to their members (McCormick, 132). This possibility might influence student-athletes to stay and finish their degree instead of going professional. This enforces the importance of obtaining a degree in the event of a career ending injury, which might cause financial hardship in the future. If a student-athlete has a college degree, he or she could utilize it to pursue a job outside of professional sports. There is a need to modernize the current structure of college athletics. The amount of revenue generated by college athletes is significant, and continues to grow. There is a large “disparity between the revenue generated and what the players receive as compensation” as the “business of college athletics continues to grow exponentially” (Vanderford, 806). Continued growth in revenue can potentially encourage athletes, coaches and universities to violate more serious NCAA bylaws, reinforcing the need to address this issue. This is a complex issue with many competing agendas. Division I athletics is a big business and the financial aspects are a significant aspect of the financial condition and funding of many large private and public universities. “The big money sports--football and men's basketball-- are big business, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. There is something wrong with the fact that the players aren't paid what they're worth. As the economist Damon Jones (a Stanford grad) put it on Twitter, ‘You demand professionalism, pay professional salaries.’” (Carden). Carden’s view is extreme in that he suggests that athletes be paid based on their true value just as professional athletes are paid. This solution would make it difficult to maintain the proper balance between fair pay for student-athletes and maintaining the concept of an amateur athlete.Finding an equitable solution that brings this balance closer together is necessary to protect student-athletes, while at the same time allowing the NCAA and colleges to financially benefit from their athletic programs. Universities often use programs that bring in large amounts of revenue to help fund other athletic programs, which is important to preserve. This model would help ensure funding is not lost for smaller programs, while encompassing more reasonably fair compensation for athletes and preserving the NCAA’s stance on amateurism. As a result, the importance of higher education is not compromised.

This is an essay I wrote in college at St. Lawrence University (December 20, 2018). It’s an easy read with lots of vital information.College sports are a way of life for millions of people across the United States. It is a way of life for hard-core fans and especially important for alumni who have a great affinity to their alma mater. Alumni play an important part in the financial success of a university and its endowment through contributions reinforcing the importance of athletic program success. Backed by extremely generous and dedicated alumni, athletic departments within the Southeastern Conference (SEC) “received more than $25 million in donations in 2011” (Gray, 1120). Alumni that collectively fund large amounts of money to a university, helps fund and maintains a highly competitive atmosphere by enabling the athletic department to dedicate resources that would normally not be available.The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a non-profit organization the regulates the athletics of more than 1,200 universities and conferences and nearly 500,000 student-athletes across three divisions of men’s and women’s athletics in the North America. In 2012, the NCAA brought in $871.6 million in revenue (Vanderford, 805) from broadcast rights and other licensing agreements. The proliferation of football bowl games and national championships draws millions of fans which has dramatically increased the amount of revenue generated by the NCAA, college conferences and universities, respectively particularly from television broadcast rights and licensing agreements. Division I athletics is considered to be a business; a business that is now estimated (2011) to be a $8 billion annual revenue industry (Gray, 1120).These are astonishing numbers for educational institutions that recruit “amateur” athletes that by definition are not allowed to receive any compensation for their athletic efforts. Despite the fact that athletes are prohibited from receiving compensation, they are bound to the requirements of participating in a sport that requires substantial time, commitment and dedication which in effect is a job, particularly in Division I sports. This raises the important question; should student-athletes be considered employees and therefore be paid for their labor and the revenue that their universities earn as a result? This is a critical question to consider, as well as the examination of the NCAA policies that create an environment of disproportional pay. In order to assess this dilemma, the current circumstances and understanding of how the NCAA and big time Division I athletics needs to be examined.The National Collegiate Athletic Association promotes and encourages high school athletes to pursue a college education and participation in college athletics through the premise of amateurism. An amateur, under the guidelines of the NCAA, is an individual that does not receive pay for their contributions in regard to athletic participation. In addition, if “a student-athlete accepts payment for the promise of athletic participation they automatically forfeit his or her amateur status” (Gray, 1121). Thus, any pay received by college athletes would turn the college atmosphere of athletics into something similar to a minor league program (Gray, 1129). The NCAA claims its primary focus is on developing student-athletes in regard to their academic well-being and success. Despite the well intentions of this notion of furthering education over athletic pursuits, there are contradictory actions being taken by universities under the NCAA’s guidelines when it comes to scholarships, and the NCAA itself.It is widely known that universities regularly award high school students scholarships to pursue an advancement in their athletic ability under the agreement that there will be no pay. Although, the university may offer a student-athlete money that corresponds with the cost of attending that university. The cost of attending cannot exceed tuition, room and board, books and out of pocket expenses (Gray, 1127). The offering of an athletic scholarship that only covers educational and common expenses is, in itself contradictory to the main goals of the NCAA. There is a discrepancy between why the student-athlete is receiving the scholarship that is based off their athletic ability and what they can actually use the scholarship money for which are academic expenses. In other words, “[scholarships] transparently serve as compensation for athletic services” performed by student-athletes (McCormick, 117). Despite this apparent conflict, it appears that the NCAA does not view this dilemma as an issue and has not publicly debated alternatives to address it or suggest alternatives.Under the NCAA’s terms and policies players are not considered professionals, yet the coaches for the most prominent athletic programs earn salaries that are market based and often rival what professional coaches are paid. While the capabilities of the coaching staff are important factors contributing to the success of a college team, the abilities and performance of the players are equally, if not more, important since the players have to face the competition and execute at a high level needed to beat the competition. Coaches at major Division I schools receive significant pay, and those who are known to train successful teams often get much more pay as a reward. But what about the players? The players are the sole creators and talent and provide the entertainment factor for their respective sports which the NCAA sells as a product for their financial gain.Regardless of how well a program does, the only group that “is denied the full financial fruit of the bountiful enterprise known as [high level] college sports” are the ones competing (McCormick, 76). The NCAA clearly states that student-athletes are not allowed to have a share in the revenue of their university’s athletic program (Gray, 1118), but the athletes deserve sharing a “just proportion of the fruits of their toil” (McCormick, 78). If athletes were allowed to share revenue, this would sacrifice the NCAA’s key principle of amateur athletics.But all this might change in the near future. It was recently found in a California federal district court that the NCAA had violated federal antitrust law in regard to one of their policies of revenue sharing. The court found NCAA rules that prohibit “student-athletes from receiving a share of revenue earned through use of their names, images, and likenesses (NIL) violated federal antitrust law.” The court did not demand the NCAA “grant student-athletes a NIL revenue share or a cost-of-attendance stipend, but if universities wished, they would now have the option to do so” (Gray, 1118). Following an appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court supported the Rule of Reason stating the requirement that NCAA schools provide up to the cost-of-attendance to student-athletes, but not more (Gray, 1119). The cost of attendance is considered “the out of pocket expenses incurred by a student-athlete at his or her university, going beyond standard scholarships that cover only tuition, room and board and books” (Gray, 1127). This is a big step in the fight for fair compensation for student-athletes, but one has to consider that fact that major Division I athletes are still not receiving a reasonable share of the value they create and therefore are being taken advantage of.Under the National Labor Relations Act, “the relationship between scholarship athletes and their colleges and universities can no longer be fairly characterized as anything other than an employment relationship in which the athletes serve as employees and the institutions for which they labor as their employers” (McCormick, 79). “Student-athlete” was a term that was established by the NCAA 50 years ago (McCormick, 73) and it is still vastly used today. The perpetual use of this term is an important factor which has created the current state where student-athletes are under valued. As a result, athletes do not reap the benefits of the massive revenues created by Division I college sports. It is important to evaluate and understand that the NCAA has the capability to financially support itself “entirely by the revenues generated from the sports activities of …” colleges and universities under their control. According to the NCAA’s audited financial statement, they generated almost $1.1 billion in revenue in 2017 largely from significant increases in broadcast and marketing fees (Berkowitz).The creation of the term student-athlete by the NCAA is “a clear effort to shift the characterization of players away from an ‘employee’ status…and [the NCAA] required intuitions and the media to use the term ‘student-athlete’ in a long term “…public relations campaign to persuade the public that these athletes [were] students, not employees” (Vanderford, 808). By persuading the public that student-athletes were and are not employees, this has allowed “…the NCAA and its members…like no other association of institutions or businesses in [the United States] to employ one type of labor without paying a competitive wage for it” (McCormick, 75). This is, but will not be the last time an employer will try to exploit their workers, in order to maximize profits (Vanderford, 806).There have been attempts by student-athletes to challenge the NCAA. In 2014 the Northwestern football team made an effort to unionize with the goal to challenge the NCAA to provide more rights and benefits to student-athletes (Nocera & Strauss). This effort gained a tremendous amount of media coverage given the significance of this initiative. Initially there was unanimous support amongst the players to pursue this, however over time the group began to divide and some players opposed the effort. Some players were concerned about retribution from coaches, the school and the NCAA that would be detrimental to their athletic careers. In the end the effort to unionize failed.While there have been some changes and steps in the right direction to treat players more fairly and reasonably from a financial perspective, there continues to be a lot of work to be done to ensure this. There are several possibilities to consider, while at the same time preserving the purpose and importance of academia at the college level. Reaching the right balance between the financial aspects of college sports and the mission of higher education is a complex endeavor.One possibility that preserves this balance would be for student-athletes across all sports, at a specific university, to receive equal pay at a base level. The teams at a particular university that are the primary contributors to the revenue stream of the athletic department would receive incrementally more pay. This could be based on a formula that allows for higher value teams to be paid slightly more than others (Gray, 1131), while ensuring that other athletic programs do not suffer. The amount allocated to a team which would be distributed evenly could be further increased from “the commercial use of their names, images and likenesses” according to a Supreme Court ruling (Gray, 1125). The current model the NCAA has imposed bylaws that indicate “[a]thletes unlike any other working people are not free to spend their limited wages where they choose but must spend them on college tuition, books and other institutionally related expenses regardless of their real needs or those of their families” (McCormick, 79). This proposal would give options how student-athletes want to spend the money. Although, to ensure that players are not considered professional, and preserve the NCAA’s notion of amateurism, the funds will be put into a long-term savings account for the student-athlete. The student-athlete would not have access to the funds, until 5 years after eligibility ends. This further ensures the student-athlete is not receiving pay at the time they are competing. This increase in cost would be mostly covered by the NCAA and conferences that already distribute revenues to their members (McCormick, 132). This possibility might influence student-athletes to stay and finish their degree instead of going professional. This enforces the importance of obtaining a degree in the event of a career ending injury, which might cause financial hardship in the future. If a student-athlete has a college degree, he or she could utilize it to pursue a job outside of professional sports. There is a need to modernize the current structure of college athletics. The amount of revenue generated by college athletes is significant, and continues to grow. There is a large “disparity between the revenue generated and what the players receive as compensation” as the “business of college athletics continues to grow exponentially” (Vanderford, 806). Continued growth in revenue can potentially encourage athletes, coaches and universities to violate more serious NCAA bylaws, reinforcing the need to address this issue. This is a complex issue with many competing agendas. Division I athletics is a big business and the financial aspects are a significant aspect of the financial condition and funding of many large private and public universities. “The big money sports--football and men's basketball-- are big business, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. There is something wrong with the fact that the players aren't paid what they're worth. As the economist Damon Jones (a Stanford grad) put it on Twitter, ‘You demand professionalism, pay professional salaries.’” (Carden). Carden’s view is extreme in that he suggests that athletes be paid based on their true value just as professional athletes are paid. This solution would make it difficult to maintain the proper balance between fair pay for student-athletes and maintaining the concept of an amateur athlete.Finding an equitable solution that brings this balance closer together is necessary to protect student-athletes, while at the same time allowing the NCAA and colleges to financially benefit from their athletic programs. Universities often use programs that bring in large amounts of revenue to help fund other athletic programs, which is important to preserve. This model would help ensure funding is not lost for smaller programs, while encompassing more reasonably fair compensation for athletes and preserving the NCAA’s stance on amateurism. As a result, the importance of higher education is not compromised.