However, between NCAA television and licensing revenues, and large salaries paid to coaches and staff, a little extra can go toward the stars on the court.

The point is that players should get something in return for their time, because most rational fans know that basketball and football players are not normal students.

The NCAA may be worried about a so called “talent drain” from their sports. In the decade between 1995 and 2005, only 39 players went to the NBA from high school. That is an average of less than four players per year, and should not be considered a drain on the system.

The NCAA, likewise, would like the top players to stay in school where they can win, draw headlines, as well as help to reel in the profits.

A Forbes article points out that the age restrictions placed on NBA and NFL draftees is used to help the leagues, not the players.[13] The NBA and the NFL are able to use college as a their farm systems.

This ranges from “one and done” basketball stars that have found John Calipari’s Kentucky to be their home of late, to physical football specimens like South Carolina’s Jadeveon Clowney who was restricted from being drafted this past year for his sophomore status.

What compounds the problem further is the NCAA policy to mandate when athletes can go professional.  The demand for paying athletes would not be as great of a mandate from this paper if the NCAA allowed players to skip college altogether.

According to his study, in 2005 a draft ready football player is worth $495,000 and a draft ready basketball player is worth over $1.4 million to the NCAA respectively. [12] This means that the scholarship value the player is receiving in return for play is nowhere near the player’s actual worth to the school. This combined with the facts that players in the revenue sports receive no pay, and are also restricted to when they can go professional, exemplifies oppressive policy set forth by the association, in collusion with the professional associations.

In a piece from the Sport Journal piece, the author points to Kahn’s argument that the NCAA acts like a cartel in its actions.

While this may sound shortsighted, college athletes in revenue sports should be paid because it is right.

The idea that a college education is payment would have to assume that a college degree always pays off in the long run. In reality, the glut of bachelor degrees entering the workforce is lessening their value. Without actually experiencing the class room and receiving the right networking and advising opportunities, it cannot be assumed that the degree is worth the athlete’s time.

This logic is extremely flawed for many of the reasons discussed earlier. The athletes cannot get the same value out of the education because of the already intense time commitment to the sport that has given them the opportunity to be in school.

Many will say that the student-athletes are already compensated with a college education.

Coaches will at times schedule less challenging classes, or ones that will fit easier into a practice schedule. These points make it seem like “athlete” really does come before “student.”

They point to an Adler and Adler study that concluded, “Big-time basketball and being seriously engaged in academics were not compatible.”

Arguments against paying the athletes always include the fact that these men and women are not just athletes, but they are students first. This viewpoint would carry more weight if the emphasis were realistically placed on academics. Johnson and Acquaviva make the point that between weight training sessions, film room, practice, individual workouts, travel, and finally competition, these “student-athletes” cannot feel much like students.

College coaches are receiving multi-million dollar salaries in this modern NCAA system. University of Texas Head Football Coach Mack Brown’s salary totals over $5 million. In comparison, scholarships for the entire Texas football team total just over $3 million.

Over the years the NCAA has changed rules that do not always align with pure amateurism. According to Zimbalist, in 1973 the NCAA altered scholarship terms so that they needed to be renewed each year.[6] This would imply that no athletes position was safe, a notion that does not fit with the love of the game

Areas in which the NCAA defies its own devotion to amateurism are the sale of video games licenses, game merchandise, footage, etc., that provide direct profit for the association. The players directly promote these examples, but the benefits received are to the NCAA and schools alone.

In a New York Times’ piece in 2011 University of Maryland system Chancellor Brit Kirwan points the blame on the NCAA itself.  “The huge TV contracts and excessive commercialization have corrupted intercollegiate athletics,” he said. “To some extent they have compromised the integrity of the universities.”

The three weeks of the NCAA Basketball Tournament, known as “March Madness,” generate over $770 million in TV rights deals alone.

While that may be what NCAA President Mark Emmert thinks still drives the association he runs, things have changed over the years. The ideals of amateurism and the capitalist benefits that the NCAA reels in annually do not mix and are in fact hypocritical.

In the U.S. News and World Report Andrew Zimbalist provides a definition of amateur as “someone who engages in the activity for fun, not remuneration.

A key point as to why the NCAA would not want to pay athletes is to maintain the amateur status of its reputation.

Some writers, like Stanley Eitzen, have even compared the system to indentured servitude or a “plantation system.”[2]  Concerning the revenue sports of men’s basketball and football, the players should be entitled to some monetary compensation for their work, as well as the right to enter the professional leagues at an age that suits their abilities.

College football and basketball generate more than the National Basketball Association, a total of more than $6 billion yearly.

Most would agree that the NCAA provides competitive sport as popular as the professionals.

Now, there’s no secret that our governments disagree on many of these issues.  I’ve had frank conversations with President Castro.  For many years, he has pointed out the flaws in the American system -- economic inequality; the death penalty; racial discrimination; wars abroad.  That’s just a sample.  He has a much longer list.

I want to comment on the terrorist attacks that have taken place in Brussels.  The thoughts and the prayers of the American people are with the people of Belgium.