We all root for them when it's game time, we scream their name when the clock is on, and look up to them as professionals representing our school, but do they personally reap the benefits of this?

On an economic level; no. College student-athletes are idolized on campus and around the country for their skill and how they perform these skills on the field or court. I feel confident enough to say that a large majority of these athletes live for and love the roar of the crowds, their name being chanted, and for playing for the name on the front of their jersey, not on the back. I think they would be more satisfied if they were seeing their payoff in not only wins, but fiscally too. College student-athletes have been pawns in a college game of chess for years now, as schools make millions off their game when they are not the ones seeing any part of it.

The NCAA constitution, under the Principle of Amateurism, states that, “…student-athletes should be protected from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises." This means that student-athletes cannot benefit from a large business like Nike making a jersey with their number on it, someone buying it because it is that athletes number, and receiving any kind of stipend. That just sounds incredibly wrong to me for many reasons.

NCAA President, Mark Emmert says that, “They are student-athletes. They are not our employees, they don't work for us. They are our students, so we don't pay them." Emmert believes that the education from their valuable universities is pay enough. If their education is their payoff, then why are student-athlete's GPA on average lower than someone who is just a student? Maybe it is because their schedule each day is hectic and are doing more than the average student. Richard Sherman, of the Seattle Seahawks, said that, “I don't think college athletes are given enough time to really take advantage of the free education that they are given, and it's frustrating because a lot of people get upset with student-athletes and say they're not focused on school and they're not taking advantage of the opportunity they are given." He also added that, “Most of these kids[non student-athletes] are done with school, done with class by 3 o'clock, you've got the rest of the day to do as you please. You may spend a few hours studying, then you may spend a few hours at the library checking out books and doing casual reading, and then you may go hang out with friends and have a coffee. When you're a student-athlete, you don't have that kind of time." How can Emmert support his ruling to not pay students saying that their education pays for them, when some student-athletes cannot find the time most days to finish a simple assignment.

Besides the ridiculous excuse of an education being pay enough for these student-athletes, there are other fiscal issues at hand. Student-athletes come from a large variety of households, single parent, wealthy, middle class, poor, etc. A universal struggle college students have, athlete or not, is an income of money. Some students work, some do not have the time. To have a job and be a student-athlete is unheard of, the extra time is not there and they are committed solely to their academics and their sport. Families of these student-athletes may not have the funds to be able to send their child money for the week or month, and he or she ends up not being able to buy necessities needed at their school. Until recent University of Connecticut alum, Shabazz Napier, spoke out about his personal issue with his problem, wondering where the next meal was a real question for some student-athletes. “There are hungry nights and I'm not able to eat and I still got to play up to my capabilities.… When you see your jersey getting sold — it may not have your last name on it — but when you see your jersey getting sold and things like that, you feel like you want something in return," said Napier during an interview after a game. Richard Sherman also took time to comment on this issue stating that, “I can tell you from experience, I had negative forty bucks in my account[in college]. Usually my account was in the negative more time than it was in the positive. You've got to make decisions on whether you get gas for your car or whether you get a meal for the day." Student-athletes feel this way all around the country, and it was not until a pressing issue like the ability to afford or get a meal for Napier was recently fixed, resorting to the NCAA making it possible for every student-athlete to receive a free unlimited meal plan as of last year in April. This would not be an issue is the NCAA was not using their “employees" for their personal gain and commission.

Of all the years of college basketball, there has not been a more publicized, written about, or criticized group like the Fab 5. The Fab 5 were the five starting players for the University of Michigan during the 1991-1993 seasons. Jalen Rose, Chris Webber, Jimmy King, Ray Jackson, and Juwan Howard changed the way basketball was played, by the way they dressed on the court to how they acted on their personal time. After the Fab 5 lost to Duke in 1991, they became even a wider-known sensation for the playing style and charisma. They traveled to Europe as a team trip after the loss and saw their talents were recognized across continents. To them, this angered them. If they were such a sensation, where was their cut in this? Jalen Rose said that, “[he] didn't feel like a college kid anymore. [He] felt like a pro that wasn't getting paid." Nike was making shoes under the Fab 5 name and everyone was buying them, but the Fab 5 had no checks in the mail. Money was so tight for them that, “[they] were eating cereal some nights." In the ESPN documentary focused on the Fab 5, one players adds that a great night was when they all put their money together to go to Taco Bell and got lucky enough that the employees noticed them and threw them a couple extra tacos. The major corporate athletic companies sold their merchandise whenever the Fab 5 wore something that stood out. When the players came out to the floor with black socks on, even though the norm was to wear white, the next day Nike was selling socks, calling them “socks the Fab 5 wears." They knew they were being used, which pushed for Webber and Rose to head to the draft to start making the money they were owed.

Collegiate athletes work harder and sacrifice more than the average college student. They are coached like professional athletes, are cheered on like ones and in some aspects, are treated like pros. They play for their school, just like any professional athlete plays for their city. The NCAA treats these student-athletes like children. At any job, the employees get payed. These college athletes have a job, a very important one, playing for their school and giving their all and pushing out one-hundred percent unit the clock hits zero. These athletes deserve to be recognized and rewarded for this. College students can work for the school and get paid, either if its in an office, catering events, or other jobs. Student-athletes work extremely hard for their school and train for that job everyday. Wether its two-a-days on the field or a long practice on the courts and hitting the weight room after. They work day in and day out without a commission, while Adidas, Nike and Under Armour make millions off them. The NCAA needs to review their Principle of Amateurism rule and make a drastic change. Either if it is a weekly or monthly allowance, these kids deserve to be treated right for the how much they give up trying to each their dreams.