By Kendall Pritchard

In the 2010-2011 season, the National College Athletic Association (NCAA) generated approximately $846 million.

It’s mind blowing that NCAA athletes risk career-ending injuries every time they step on the court or field and don’t see a dime in return. It’s not only mind blowing, it’s inexcusable.

Nevertheless, NCAA members continue to vote to forbid the sharing of revenue with their athletes.

The first thing opponents say to the topic is, “They’re already getting a scholarship. That’s more than anybody else.”

Depending on the situation, some students receive free tuition, room and board, as well as money for book, and miscellaneous items all four years.

But schools, such as the University of Texas and Ohio State, bring in close to $140-160 million a year solely due to athletics.

NCAA coaches make anywhere from $300,000 to $6 million a year. They receive bonuses for getting into the playoffs, winning championships and breaking school records.

But what do the athletes who got the school into the playoffs, who won championship titles and who broke school records get? Close to diddly squat.

The argument against paying student-athletes arises mainly from greed and self-interest from the NCAA as a whole. Every athlete should be paid simply based off the ridiculous amounts of money being made off these players has led to the question: Do these athletes deserve to be paid for their contributions?

“I don’t believe athletes should be restricted from pay. This is a multi-billion dollar business, and only one class of person is restricted from benefit beyond expenses, and that’s the athlete,” ESPN sports analyst Jay Bilas said. “The NCAA subjects athletes and only athletes to cartel restrictions while everyone else, including every other student, is allowed fair market value. That’s wrong.”

Contrary to what others may believe, being an athlete is a full-time job.

Athletes wake up for early morning conditioning, go to classes like every other college student, participate two-a-day practices, mandatory study halls, curfews and try to have somewhat of a social life.

Unfortunately, not every athletic program in the NCAA can afford to pay all their athletes and compensate them otherwise for their efforts, and the NCAA sticks to the belief that student athlete compensation destroys the competitive balance.

“The only obstacles are the people in charge. They simply don’t want to. They use doomsday scenarios to stall the discussion, and claim it’s too complicated, which is total nonsense,” Bilas said. “The idea that the health of the entire enterprise hinges upon the athletes and only the athletes being amateur is laughably absurd and demonstrably false.”

Saying that the NCAA cannot pay for student-athletes endeavors can be considered illegal.

According to Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, “every contract, combination or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce…is declared to be illegal.”

In non-legal talk, it means that NCAA members that proceed to prohibit the pay of student-athletes represents a form of wage fixing that likely violates antitrust law. A current court by NCAA athletes could determine just that.

“[This lawsuit] can have profound impact and change the conversation, if not the entire landscape,” Bilas said. “It has already caused many to think about these issue for the first time, and more deeply.”

Not only is it immoral to not pay athletes but the NCAA as a whole could be facing many legal consequences.

We may see athletes be rewarded the way they should be. We might not. However, everything going on should cause people to think about the topic.