Unit III Scholarly ActivityAssignment Content Assignment objective: Create an annotated bibliography of two academically credible sources and a research proposal of at least one full paragraph. Leng
Ehrhardt, M. (2023). The money game: Student-athletes’ battle for employee status. New York Law
School Review, 67(1), 61–77.
Ehrhardt’s article focuses heavily on the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s
(NCAA) laws and policies regarding paying athletes. The article also discusses millions of
dollars made by collegiate coaches and ultimately argues that college athletes should
not only be able to profit off their name, image, and likeness (NIL) but also should be
compensated as employees of their respective universities. I will use this article to help show
arguments that athletes should be paid.
Walsh, M. (2021). Commodification of college athletes’ name, image, and likeness. Creighton Law
Review, 55(1), 79-111.
Walsh’s article considers not only whether college athletes should be paid, but also
the repercussions if athletes’ NILs are turned into commodities. The article examines
opposing arguments on whether college athletes should be paid but ultimately claims that these
arguments miss a crucial piece of the puzzle—who should be paying these athletes. Walsh
indicates that if athletes are to be paid, it should not be by their universities but rather by the
businesses that profit from their NIL. This article will be used to explore the middle ground
between the two major arguments in my paper.
Proposal:
College athletics, particularly football and basketball, are a huge industry with dedicated fans throughout the country. College athletes must maintain their studies and practice, travel, and play at near professional levels, but they are not paid for their talents. Recent debates about this issue center on whether these athletes should be paid, and if so by whom, or if the perks and education they receive are payment enough. Proponents for paying college athletes argue that universities and sports-affiliated companies make millions of dollars off players’ names, images, and likenesses (NIL), and thus, the players should be compensated. Opponents argue that these athletes are receiving incredibly high-level training and coaching that will prepare them for professional leagues and are often offered full athletic scholarships and living allotments, eliminating the need to take out loans for classes and board, and thus, should not be paid extra. Because of the revenue and fandom they create for their universities and teams as well as the companies that profit off selling jerseys and other merchandise using players’ NIL, college athletes should be monetarily compensated.