Athletes and law suits

I know that this may fall under college athletics, but I saw it more from a legal point of view which really made me say, this is unbelEIvable! As pointed out in the college athletic section, there is a huge movement throughout the nation for "student-athletes" to get paid or to not get paid. This topic can be argued over and over again. Originally I felt that student-athletes should not get paid extra money (away from their small spending stipend that they received each week) because those on scholarship are receiving an education, and at times, a world-class education. My viewpoint has changed over the last couple years because of the expansion of NCAA and the amount of money, almost a billion dollars in revenue each year, it is acquiring from such markets as ESPN and Turner Communications, not to mention merchandise sales. The part that makes all this so interesting is, with the amount of money the NCAA is pulling in, what exactly is a "student-athlete?"

The article listed from the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/5/

states the lawsuits that have taken place over the past 60 years. The article states how the term "student-athlete" is designed to show how college sports are designed for the amateurs, so that way they can not take any outside income from sponsors or for any financial gain. Any amateur can not be compensated for their sport, only a professional can, and that includes sponsorships. As this article points out, the term was created in 1950 when a football player sued the NCAA over an injury that a football player received while playing in a game which resulted in death. The family wanted to receive workman's compensation death benefits since he was playing football for his college. The Colorado Supreme Court awarded in favor of the COLLEGE, not the family saying that the college was not in the "football business."

For the next 50 years, colleges have been winning court cases in regards to these types of injuries on the playing fields, not just football. There are a number of references in the article of these cases and the players losing them. If the colleges are using these athletes as a mean of financial gain, then can't the athletes then be technically be employed by the university? If they are employed by the university, then they should be awarded workman's compensation like every other employee the university hires as well. Arguably, the athlete works more hours than the student-employee does during the week. The work may be labeled differently, but the hours are long, and if you break the scholarship money down by hourly wage, it would amount to less than minimum wage.

My problem with this whole student athlete dilemma is that times have changed dramatically over the last 60 years, especially over the last 10 years. Even with the advancements in video gaming rates (EA Sports is worth millions) and the television right mentioned earlier, there needs to be some sort of effort to ensure the athlete is taken care of medically if something occurs. To say that the athlete is not employed by the university is absurd. That athlete is bringing in revenue to the university, so even though they are getting a scholarship, there should be some sort of modification in the bylaws concerning all this. Times have changed and so does the system of what exactly amateur status is.