March Madness - the four weeks annually during which college basketball powerhouses and underdogs battle for victory in the NCAA Basketball Tournament. Through these games, teams not only assert their talent and dominance, but also earn their colleges' recognition and money. By the end of the tournament, the colleges and the NCAA will earn millions through advertisements, television contracts and sponsorships. Yet in line with NCAA regulations, the players in the spotlights representing the focal point of the competition will not directly receive any of that money.

College and high school authorities have maintained a strict policy preventing collegiate players from receiving monetary gifts, favors or salaries of any kind from their colleges. They do so in order to preserve the status of those athletes as students and amateurs. If the players received money from college earned, the government would also technically view these players as employees of the colleges. Consequently, those educational institutions would have to spend millions in order to deal with additional issues, such as unionization, insurance, workers rights, etc. However, regardless of that employee status, do the players deserve to receive money which the colleges receive because of their performances?

Currently, many colleges encourage players and attempt to compensate them instead through scholarships and payment of other certain amenities, such as books. These remain strictly as educational incentives and therefore technically not a salary or payoff of any kind. In 2002, the elite Atlantic Coast Conference teams each received an average of $8,080,547[1] for the profits from their basketball and football programs. Doubtlessly, a fair portion of that sum goes towards sustaining the athletic programs and paying staff. Yet the college athletes will directly get zero percent of it. For all the hours of time they spend traveling, playing and practicing, the players officially get none of the earnings. Comparatively, in professional sports players usually receive at least fifty percent of the revenue.

However, as consequence, college sports receive entertaining competitions and efforts from the players, who play simply for the love of the game or to demonstrate their skills in hopes of receiving the payoff further down the line when they turn professional. Therefore you do not have debacles such as with Jim Jackson, temporarily of the New Orleans, in the NBA. Basically, when traded to a last-place, he refused to honor his contract and play on such a bad team. Thankfully, in the NCAA, you find players playing hard for their own motivations, reasons and goals, which makes for terrific competition. Big riches do not cloud their efforts or minds nearly as much as in the professional world.

So how would the NCAA skirt the conception of players as employees, pay them some of the money they earn and still keep the quality of the college sports? Well, unfortunately no easy or immediate solution exists. If they pay the players even a small amount, the college also needs to deal with federal laws dealing with employees. In order to avoid all the nuisances for the rights of employees, they can not pay the players. Some might point out that if the NCAA really wished to pay the players, they could pay for the monetary dealings of items, such as insurance, pay the players a stipend, and still end up with an excellent profit. Others will also argue that the players have already received fair enough compensation through under the table dealings and a free education through full athletic scholarships. Due to the inability to directly pass money to the athletes, sometimes colleges will even try to funnel money to the players through other sources, against NCAA rules.

Fortunately, as it currently plays out, college sports functions perfectly well in spite of this issue. Nonetheless, with the kind of revenue NCAA sports earns, in the future the debate and deliberating over the right of the players to receive the money earned by their own efforts will inevitably ensue.