NCAA student athletes ought to be recognized as employees under the fair labor standards act.

Your first contention says that paying student athletes would be too costly. But I would like to point out that these students are making the schools a lot of money. The better they do in competitive brackets the more money the school gets. And since that is their hard work, they should get money for that. Also, define monopoly of talent. You state that college athletes can spend more than 40 hours a week practicing. Cite: [Torrance, 2017"why the NCAA should pay it athletes", Bosten university jornalism department, November 28, 2017, http://bunewsservice.com... ] Card:The NCAA will argue that student-athletes are not "employees" under federal law, but the typical Division I college football player devotes more than 40 hours per week to his sport, more than the average American work week. Meanwhile, the annual NCAA Division I football championship is played on a Monday night, causing most athletes to miss class. In 2014, the national football championship even required Florida State football players to miss the first day of spring classes. At other schools, the road to the NCAA men"s basketball championship may require student-athletes to miss up to a quarter of all class days during their spring semester. They are doing more work than a typical full time job that is 35-40 hours, and are getting no money for all the work they put in. This is wrong. Morally wrong. I understand the financial limits of these universities, but then again, you get paid for how well you do. So cost wouldn't be too much of a problem. The schools with better teams who do very well, obviously make more money, which in turn means their students get paid more. But teams that don't do well, they won't get paid much at all. Purely because it is based off their work that men and women in our society get paid. in your case you mention how money is the most versatile form of power. How we make decisions inclined to make money. Yet I don't see how this is a negative. If you are striving for a goal, and suddenly that goal has more value. Would you not try harder? Would you not put in even more work? This would allow these schools to do better because their students are putting in more effort and the schools in turn would make more money. Then you said that athletes are already getting monthly stipends and free tuition. I would like to say that this is not enough. If an athlete is injured and cannot play. He loses his scholarship. And then where is he? Analysis: The scholarships that these students earned are to easy to lose Cite: (By Lauren Deutsch | 09/06/2016, The Crimson White.) Deutsch 16Card:Moreover, athletes can, and do, lose scholarships due to injury or other reasons that can affect their ability to play. Four-year athletic scholarships do not exist; instead, they are renewable annually. Thus, an athlete can contribute to his team for three years, find himself injured, and suddenly have no way to pay for his senior year of college. He, of course, will have no sort of salary to fall back on, and he likely will not have had a chance to work a part-time job or internship, due to the intense time commitments during both the season and the off-season. He is essentially out of options. In these cases, conditional scholarships are simply not an adequate substitute for a traditional paycheck. What this piece of evidence is saying is that if they got paid for their work. That even if something horrible happened, they would have money to fall back on! their life wouldn't be over. You keep stating that these students receive support and extremely expensive things, yet if they either get kicked out of the tem, flunk, or get injured. They are left totally on their own with nothing to fall back on.