Works Cited

Wilbon, Michael. "College Athletes Deserve to Be Paid." ESPN.go.com. ESPN, 18 July

2011. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
The article College Athletes Deserve to Be Paid." by Michael Wilson (ESPN
Analyst) states that his prior opinion to the debate on paying college athletes was a
resounding no. What caused him to change his opinion is the sheer amount of
wealth that goes into television deals, coaches salaries, and how much a lot of
players live below the poverty line. CBS made a business model where through the
years 2011-2016 they will make 11.3 billion dollars off of the March Madness
Tournament. With this amount of money, Wilson argues that some of that could go
towards paying the athletes who generate it. Wilson has a similar point of view to
Wen Huang in his article "Economists Recommend Paying College Athletes." Both
agree that too much wealth is generated without compensating the athletes.
Sanderson, Allen R., and John J. Siegfried. "The Case for Paying College Athletes."
Journal of Economic Perspectives 29.1 (2015): 115-38. Newhaven.edu. Wall
Street Journal, 16 Sept. 2011. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Allen Sandersons article displays the issue on paying college athletes with
both sides having equally convincing arguments, having quotes from both
supporters and those against paying college athletes. There is no clear bias in the
article, but seems to lean toward paying the athletes. Sanderson brings up the
Olympic model of amateurism where they are not paid a salary by the organization,
but are in charge of all endorsements, can hire agents, and sell the rights to
companies such as Nike. In this model the money that college athletes would get
comes not from universities, but from multinational, fortune-500 companies that
can afford it. This article is very similar to "Paying College Athletes: Not If, But How."
By Tyler Kingkade, because it offers possible solutions to the issue more than
debating on the morals of it.
Dorfman, Jeff. "Pay College Athletes? They're Already Paid Up To $125,000 Per Year."
Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 29 Aug. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Jeff Dorfmans article on college athlete payment focuses on the chain
reaction of problems that would surface if college athletes were to be paid. He
brings up the point that not all sports generate revenue for the college, actually
only 23 out of 128 athletic programs break even as a national average per school.
Also the benefits given to athletes through tuition, room and board, meal plans,
strength training, and access to athletic trainers is valued at close to $125,000. With
this number, other than a few select athletes around the country, it doesnt make
economic sense to pay athletes at all. Dorfmans clear bias leans toward the side of
not paying athletes. Dorfman has a similar point of view to Alex Prewitt clearly
shows he doesnt think athletes should be paid in the article "Large Majority
Opposes Paying NCAA Athletes.
Johnson, Dennis A., and John Acquaviva. "Point/Counterpoint: Paying College
Athletes | the Sport Journal." The Sport Journal. The Sport Journal, 15 June
2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

The article "Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes gives a very much

unbiased insight on the debate of paying college athletes. Author Dennis Johnson
brings up convincing points from both points of view with the purpose of informing
the reader rather than persuading. These point include current corruption in the
college athletics when players do have a large sum of discretionary income,
including DUIs and drug charges. Also on the other hand he brings up the success
of how the Olympics handle their amateur athletes by letting them be endorsed by
any company that feels the need to. The structure of this article is similar to Tim
Dahlburgs article where he explains the court case of college athlete payment.
Prewitt, Alex. "Large Majority Opposes Paying NCAA Athletes." Washington Post. The
Washington Post, 23 Mar. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Prewitt seems to be focused on the public opinion of the college
athlete payment issue with most of his argument revolving around polls taken about
this issue. He states that more than 64% of college football fans think that athletes
should go unpaid. Smaller demographic groups follow the same trend except with
African Americans from the ages 18-30 having a 70% for and 30% against vote.
Prewitt has a clear bias being that of not paying athletes, and use of facts reflects
the article "Pay College Athletes? They're Already Paid Up to $125,000 Per Year."
written by Jeff Dorfman
Kingkade, Tyler. "Paying College Athletes: Not If, But How." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 7 Jan. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Kingkade suggests that there is not argument for whether college athletes
should be paid or not. Instead he states that some conferences have already begun
prepping their athletic programs for compensating the efforts of athletes. Current
NCAA President Mark Emmett is in support of this new pay-for-play programs, for
the simple fact that the NCAA has become a big business. Alabama head coach Nick
Saban believes that his players put in enough time to get a piece of the pie. Also
one of Kingkades main points was that athletes need extra spending money
because with their busy schedules there is no time to get a job to pay for things like
extra food, clothes, trips home, among other things. Kingkade has a clear bias
toward paying athletes similar to Wen Huang whose article follows the same outline.
Huang, Wen. "Economists Recommend Paying College Athletes." Economists
Recommend Paying College Athletes. University of Chicago, 6 Feb. 2015.
Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
While not having very much experience in college athletics, Huang, Wen, and
his sources are very experienced in economics. They believe the same thing that
most supporters of paying college athletes believe, including Tyler Kingkade and
Michael Wilbon. Which is that the NCAA makes more than enough money to keep its
athletes over the poverty line, but for some reason do not choose to do so. Huangs
bias is made clear throughout the article that he supports college athletes getting
paid. His sources include head economics professor at Vanderbilt University Allen
Sanderson, and John Siegfried Head Economics Lecturer at Chicago University.

Rudesky, Vicky Huber. "College Athletes: To Pay or Not to Pay?" Delawareonline.

University of Delaware, 5 Nov. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Vicky Huber, a former track star herself at Villanova University, and parent of
a current student athlete believes college athletes should be paid. Her obvious bias
is on the side of mot paying college athletes. She states that the NCAA is doing
college sports right by preserving college athletes amateurism by not allowing
them to get paid. Regardless of the amount of money a sport brings in, Huber
believes that no athlete should be given money on top of the scholarship they have
already been given. Both this article and Jeff Dorfmans "Pay College Athletes?
They're Already Paid Up to $125,000 Per Year. share the same point of view.
Gregory, Sean. "Some College Athletes Will Now Get Paid-a Little." Time. Time, 7
Aug. 2014. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
Sean Gregorys article "Some College Athletes Will Now Get Paid-a Little. is a
very informative article elaborating on the new policies put in by the NCAA. These
policies allow teams in the Big 5 conferences (Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, ACC, and the
SEC) to pay their players up to $5000 in extra funds for things like extra food,
clothing, and the occasional movie. No side is taken on the issue due to the fact that
Gregory has evidence from both pros and cons of college athletes getting paid,
although he does seem to be leaning toward the pro paying athletes side. Unlike
the article "Large Majority Opposes Paying NCAA Athletes.", which is much more
opinionated than it is informative, Gregory seems to want to inform rather than
persuade. Both articles are very useful to understand the NCAAs view on paying
college athletes or not.
Dahlberg, Tim. "Court Ruling On Paying College Athletes Will Fundamentally Change
The NCAA." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc., 10 Aug. 2014. Web. 11
Nov. 2015.
Dahlburgs article the court ruling for the issue on paying college athletes or
not is based solely on the court ruling and offers no opinion on the matter itself. A
federal judge ruled that the NCAA cannot stop players from selling their rights to
their names to companies that make jerseys, such as Nike, Adidas, or Under Armor.
This ruling doesnt do much for the players because the NCAA is still allowed to
penalize the players for doing so. Dahlburg gives an in depth view on what it means
to be an amateur status athlete, whether it means not being paid, the age of the
athlete, the level at which athletes play at, or many other factors. Dahlburg does a
great job avoiding bias by using quotes and convincing arguments from both sides.
Similar to the article by Sean Gregory "Some College Athletes Will Now Get Paid-a
little." Dahlburg simply reports on the event rather than giving an opinion.