Thesis

Although college athletes have never been paid, one might believe that players should be compensated because of the fact that they make so much money for the university. The following sections will outline the pros and cons of paying college athletes, evaluate the arguments of both sides, and provide a potential solution to the future of athlete compensation

College Athletes Getting Paid: Some Pros and Cons

This source by the Huffington Post evaluates the pros and cons of paying college athletes and provides insight on the situation. It profiles a couple of athletes such as Ed O’Bannon and Shabazz Napier to build an argument towards paying athletes. It also provides statistics to build the foundation of the argument. With Huffington Post being one of the most credible newspapers, this will be a great source for my research paper. I will such this source primarily for the player accounts.

College Athletes Should Be Getting Paid

This source by ESPN is more of a biased take on the situation and argues that athletes should be getting paid. This article uses primarily statistics to build their argument. This article by ESPN is credible because it is a high-caliber sports outlet. The author of the article Michael Wilson has been one of the most credible personalities at ESPN, so I am comfortable using this article. This article will be used for the statistics and to build the pros towards paying athletes.

Want to clean college athletics? Pay the athletes

This source by the Washington Post once again takes the side of paying college athletes and provides it’s own argument. It uses examples such as Rick Pitino and several scandals as a reason to pay athletes. It creates a great counter-argument against the traditional college athletics system. This source if very credible because its from Washington Post. I am going to use it for the counter-argument against not paying athletes.