# data[].attributes.body
Counterclaim article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine working for countless hours, six days a week, then putting on multiple performances just so someone else can be paid billions. That is the life of a college athlete. College athletes do not get any recognition or benefits that they deserve for the revenue they bring to their university and the surrounding community. For some college athletes, things such as tuition, gear, recovery items, and other necessities needed to perform are not free or cheap. Many college athletes pay money out of their own pockets to be able to perform at the level they need to, but who gets all the financial benefits? The NCAA and the university itself.

According to USA Today, the NCAA had a revenue of $1.1 Billion from 2017 NCAA college sporting events. How much of this money went to the college athletes who are the ones physically and mentally performing generating this money? Zero. However, in a legal way, college athletes who are playing at Division 1 or Division 2 schools are being paid with full scholarship tuition. It is fair to say that, paid tuition is equivalent to being a paid athlete. This leaves out Division 3 college athletes who put in just as much hard work and time to be able to perform at a high level and generate money for the NCAA and their university, but do not receive full rides. At Division 3 colleges, the only scholarship that is allowed is academic, not athletic. I interviewed Walker McDonald, a current college athlete at Greenville University, and asked him the question of, should college athletes get paid for playing for their university? Walker said, "I believe college athletes should be paid based on how much money they get from scholarships...athletes should at least make enough money to cover their tuition if the scholarship doesn't."

Media by NCAA Money Revenue.

Media by All NCAA College Sports.

College athletes have to sign contracts by the NCAA stating that they will not receive any money from anyone while they are playing for the university. I do not dismiss the fact that playing for a university is a privilege and not a right, college athletes have many experiences and memories that are priceless in life. However, times are hard for many students, and college athletes have a bit more expenses when it comes to necessities, they need to be able to perform at high levels. I was able to interview Josias Parker, an alumna of the men's basketball team at Greenville University. I asked him if college athletes should get paid for their time playing for their university. Josias replied by saying, "I definitely think college athletes should get paid, because universities make a lot of money from sports, sports bringing a majority of income, especially for small schools like Greenville University. Athletes should get paid especially because college is a tough time with money, so paying money to athletes will give college athletes more relief and will try to help them and aid them with whatever they need, like necessities they need to perform well."

There is a good compromise with those who disagree with the idea of college athletes getting paid, instead of a set salary like professionals. The very least college athletes could receive is donations from fans or other organizations. College athletes are told to treat their sport as a job and be professional about every aspect of the game. However, like waiters and waitresses get tips for doing a good job, why can't athletes be rewarded the same way?

Even without pay, the very least college athletes could receive is a guarantee that their scholarship will not be taken away if they are hurt playing. If we are going the route that an athlete's pay is their scholarship, then it shouldn't be able to be taken away when they are no longer "useful" for the university. Athletes like Kyle Hardrick who lost his basketball scholarship at Oklahoma University after he tore his meniscus in his knee are examples that universities only care about the ability of the player to perform. If universities only care about the usefulness of the athlete, then there should be guaranteed tuition or pay allowing the athlete to finish college even after being injured and unable to play. Student college athletes should get paid, especially after seeing the details of what they go through to perform at the high caliber level they compete at.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine working for countless hours, six days a week, then putting on multiple performances just so someone else can be paid billions. That is the life of a college athlete. College athletes do not get any recognition or benefits that they deserve for the revenue they bring to their university and the surrounding community.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ex-college basketball player: NCAA shouldn't pay players

# data[].attributes.subject
Ex-college basketball player: NCAA shouldn't pay players

# data[].attributes.body
CNN (Video 1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ex-college basketball player: NCAA shouldn't pay players

# data[].attributes.headline
What Would Happen if College Basketball Athletes Were Paid?

# data[].attributes.subject
What Would Happen if College Basketball Athletes Were Paid?

# data[].attributes.body
CNBC (Video 2)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Would Happen If College Basketball Athletes Were Paid? | CNBC

# data[].attributes.headline
Paying students to play would ruin college sports.

# data[].attributes.subject
Paying students to play would ruin college sports.

# data[].attributes.body
New York Times (Article 1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Paying Students to Play Would Ruin College Sports (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A handful of programs would pay top dollar for a select few athletes, while other schools would get caught up in a bidding war they couldn’t afford.

# data[].attributes.headline
Paying college athletes is not the answer.

# data[].attributes.subject
Paying college athletes is not the answer.

# data[].attributes.body
The State Press (Article 2)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NCAA should incentivize education, not paid employment

By

Photo by Angel Jimenez | The State PressAlex Coil | 09/29/2019 4:24pm
"Even worse, imagine athletes just coming to college for the money." Illustration published on Sunday, Sept. 29, 2019.

In the entirety of college football's 150-year history, college athletes have not been paid, and it needs to stay that way.

Earlier this month, California lawmakers approved a bill, that the governor has not yet signed, that would allow college athletes to profit off their name and likeness.

Tim Tebo w, a former college quarterback who won the Heisman, went on ESP N's First Take to share his belief that paying student athletes is the wrong approach.

Tebow is exactly right.

The phenomenon around paying college athletes and those driving the movement forward are forgetting the reason one goes to college: to get an education.

In an era striving for competitive balance, how would the NCAA keep from giving schools like Kentucky and Alabama even more of a competitive advantage than schools like Valparaiso and Florida Gulf Coast?

The issue gets complicated when taking into consideration how the salary difference between the quarterback on the football team and the third-string goalie on the lacrosse team gets decided.

Even worse, imagine athletes just coming to college for the money.

"You're going to see bigger schools use (paying athletes) as a recruiting advantage," said Marco Salas a redshirt freshman offensive lineman on the football team. "I think some people are going to come just to make money."

We call college athletes amateurs. Oxford's definition of amateur is "a person who engages in a pursuit, especially a sport, on an unpaid basis."The keyword there is unpaid.

The history of the word amateur dates back to the French, from the Latin, word "amator", which means lover, and also from "amare"which means to love.

Essentially, the word amateur is based on the word love. College athletes should be playing their sport for the love of the game, not the money that would be given to them if we decide to give them a salary.

Rules should not be made for the fractional minority, and in this instance only two percent of athletes play professional sports. The expected career span of that two percent is 10 years, three and a half years in the NFL.

An appalling 80 percent of retired NFL players go broke within three years of retirement, 60 percent in the NBA within five years.

This is why the NCAA and its member institutions should implement a "stay and learn" rule.

This rule should state that if athletes choose to come to college, they will get paid in scholarships that last the entirety of the educational process and the athlete must stay in school until they earn a degree, associates at minimum, in the area of study they choose. If they choose not to go to college and play professionally, that is the risk they take.

By not forcing athletes to play in college, the argument for paying them goes away.

"I'd value the education," Salas said. "That money (from going pro) is going to run out sometime, but the degree will always be there for you. You can use that in the long term."

We need to protect the future of these athletes by arming them with the free education they choose to pursue. These athletes need a backup plan in case of a career-ending injury or a more common issue, the lack of talent to play professionally.

Look at college athletics for what it is and should always be, a high-pressure learning environment and an avenue to earn an education. A much more fun extension of the classroom if you will. After all, they are called student-athletes.
Editor's note: The opinions presented in this column are the author's and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Reach the columnist at ancoil@asu.edu or follow @anc2018 on Twitter.

Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 500 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.

Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: Paying college athletes is not the answer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California lawmakers approved a bill that legalizes payment of college athletes. Instead of paying them, institutions need to focus on educating them.

# data[].attributes.body
Odyssey (Article 3)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Throughout the years big name college athletes have been trying to get six-digit numbers in their bank account before making it to the pros. What they do not understand is that college is not a place of work and that it is meant to further education for a future career. Also, no college, big or small, has enough money to pay them. They have to pay to build facilities, pay coaches, give scholarships, and pay athletic directors to make sure that the school has the best chance of winning. Despite the fact that most athletes do not have money to get by while they are in college, schools do not gain enough revenue back from the money that they put into their sports programs. They are technically already paid with a free education due to their scholarship, and all of the different sports would not be able to be paid the same amount.

If colleges were to pay their athletes, there would not be as much money to go around for any of the other things like the facilities or the coaches. Not only do colleges not have enough money, but it would also defeat the purpose of going to school. If athletes were to start getting paid, it would give people a reason to talk about paying other students in the school. "If we pay the athletes maybe we should also do it for the first violinist in the school orchestra, or the lead actor in theatrical productions, and perhaps popular professors should allocate course enrollment slots to those students who bid the highest" according to Andrew Zimbalist of theatlantic.com. It would also make the cost of college more expensive. The money would have to come from somewhere. That would just make it harder for a regular student to attend a college. According to star.txstate.edu, it would be really unfair to the other students. Some if not all college athletes are already on scholarships, so why should they be paid like they are professionals? Many college athletes argue that since they do not have time to get jobs that they should be paid by the university so that they can have extra money to spend. What they do not realize is that the average college student is middle class and has to pay their way through school. It is not that since they do not play a sport they have money to spend. These students would kill to have their school paid for and all they would have to worry about is their grades.

It would really ruin the culture of college sports. College students love college sports because the athletes are students just like they are. The athletes are in classes and are seen on campus. They are a part of the school's community. Money would separate the athletes from the student body. It would make them seem like they are the most important people at the school.

Another thing is that some athletes do not stay in school the four years to earn their degrees, so they will take up classroom space for one or two years and it is free. Some athletes don't even deserve the education that they are being given. For example, the valedictorian of my high school class really wanted to go to Georgetown. She got in, but tuition was over $75,000 a year, yet there are athletes that go to this school for free and probably do not have the grades to even be there. Former NBA star Allen Iverson who barely graduated high school and will tell you himself that he hated school, got to go to Georgetown for free, and he only stayed for one year.

Forbes.com was also able to bring up some good points. Football and basketball are the two sports that most people think of when it comes to athletes being paid. What about the other sports? Athletes participate in sports like soccer, tennis, golf, baseball, volleyball, track and field. They work just as hard as football and basketball players, but just because they do not generate as much money they have to be treated differently than the people that work out in the same facilities as they do. Even if it were possible for athletes to be paid they should all be paid the same. Some people claim that football and men's basketball should be the only sports to be paid because those are the sports that generate the bulk of the revenue. This would be violating the federal Title IX law. This law stipulates equal compensation for male and female athletes. Besides the issue of paying the participants of every sport, there is also the issue of everyone being paid - should you just pay your elite athletes or the whole team? How much would you pay players? Is it one set amount for every athlete, or will there be pro-like contracts? If you let athletes get paid for endorsements, will it give some programs unfair advantages? If someone plays for a school like Alabama they are more likely to get an endorsement than if they were playing for a school like Tulsa. It is the same issue with allowing profit off merchandise sold with their name or number. Playing for Florida would give a better opportunity to make a profit off of merchandise than playing for Western Michigan.

Also, imagine a coach trying to discipline a college player if they were paid. Even if they know they messed up all they would care about is the money. Paying them would affect their character and it would affect the way they act if they were to go out in the real world and play professionally. College teaches you about life and tells you to be disciplined. It is hard to be disciplined when you are getting paid a lot of money.

One thing that may surprise the reader of this paper is that most colleges, even the big name ones, do not even make the money back that they put into their sports programs. Despite all the tickets, merchandise, and memorabilia that these big name universities sell, they cannot break even. According to theatlantic.com, the average FBS athletic program ran a $9.44 million operating deficit. This brings up the question where would the money come from?

While researching on forbes.com only 14 athletic programs are generating a profit without having to rely on institutional support like student fees. Ohio state university needs over $22 million from the booster club in order to balance. OSU could ask the boosters for money to pay the players, but what would a school like Western Kentucky do? They already spend 5.6 million on grants-in-aid and it takes 8.2 million from the university to balance their budget. How would they pay their players?

One thing that shocked me while I was doing research on thestate.com was that the athletes that are basically impoverished receive a federal supplement every semester. It is called Pell Grant money. Qualified college athletes receive up to $5,645 put in their bank accounts a year. The athlete can choose to spend this money in any way they want. So it is pretty much up to them to be smart with it and not blow it on something stupid. This money is meant to help athletes from impoverished backgrounds live like average students without hardship.

Dawn Staley, the South Carolina women's basketball coach grew up in the Philadelphia projects. She earned a full scholarship to Virginia where she qualified for the maximum amount of Pell Grant money. "Things came up. I didn't have much when I went to school. When you see other people with things, you're a kid, you want them. If you don't have them, you don't feel like you're having the full experience of being in college." Staley's example from two decades ago still applies today. The athletes that need it the most are taken care of through Pell Grants. They do not need the extra money. These grants are distributed based on the annual income of an athlete's family. The lower the income the higher the grant.

Most fans of college sports do not know that the NCAA allows for additional help to athletes through the student athlete opportunity fund. It is intended to provide direct benefits to student athletes or their families as determined by conference officers. Some of the benefits include non-athletics related health expenses that are not covered by an athlete's insurance plan, travel expenses for an athlete to attend funerals or family emergencies, and a $200 annual clothing allowance, as long as Pell Grants are available.

A big reason college athletes should not be paid is simply because they are not professionals. College athletes are people that are trying to get to the pros and therefore, are not paid because they have not made it yet. Since these players are in college, they should never be paid to play their sport. College sports are just like another class. College students pick something that they want to major in so that they can learn and start a career. College sports should be treated the same way. "I am a broadcast journalism major and no one pays me to set up interviews, anchor a show or broadcast on the college radio station, U92 FM. The reason why no one pays me to do any of that is because I am learning my field in order to get paid when I get a job. In college sports you play to get to the pros, not to earn a paycheck as a student." says Josh Cooper of bdlsports.net. What people forget about college athletes is that they are student athletes. The word student comes before athlete. No one in college gets paid to get an A+ or pass an important test. College is a place where you learn to grow up and how to manage your life.

The biggest reason why college athletes should not be paid is that having a scholarship is technically a form of pay. No, the athlete does not get that money to spend on whatever they want, but the most important thing is paid for. The average college student would kill to have their school already paid for. Not only does a college athlete have a chance to go pro in a sport but they have a chance to finish a degree, which can be used if the pros do not go as planned.

While reading an article by John Rocker from wind.com I discovered that college athletes also have the opportunity to meet the boosters of the schools that they play for. A school's boosters club is made up of alumni that give a lot of money to the school. They most likely own their own businesses. This is another job opportunity for an athlete. If the pros do not work out the booster could remember the athlete's buzzer beater against their rival and give them a job.

In closing, there are too many questions that need to be answered and too many issues that would arise from college athletes getting paid. A college athlete has a ton of privileges and opportunities. There is no reason why they should be paid. Their school is free, they have a chance of getting a job if the pros don't work out and there is just not enough money to go around.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Throughout the years big name college athletes have been trying to get six-digit numbers in their bank account before making it to the pros. What they do not understand is that college is not a place of work and that it is meant to further education for a future career.

# data[].attributes.headline
I'm a Penn athlete and we shouldn't get paid. Here's why.

# data[].attributes.subject
I'm a Penn athlete and we shouldn't get paid. Here's why.

# data[].attributes.body
The Daily Pennsylvanian (Article 4)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit: Jess Tan

Last week, Charlie Dolgenos, a fellow DP staffer, wrote a column on why college athletes should be paid.

I'm about to ostracize myself from at least half of the athletics community by arguing why student athletes should not be paid for participating in amateur sports.

Most arguments saying that student athletes should be paid center around equating practice and competition hours with labor. Because college athletes dedicate five hours a day to their sport, in addition to adequately taking care of sleep, hydration, and nutrition, they should be paid since the time spent honing their skills could be valuable elsewhere.

In an argument based on pure compensation of labor, we must talk about the economic value of an athlete's labor in comparison with the alternatives. The average out-of-state tuitions for the 2018-2019 school year are $21,629 for public school and $35,676 for private school. An athlete on full scholarship at Duke, a basketball powerhouse, will avoid paying roughly $235,000 for a top-notch education, which I believe is worthy compensation for putting in several years of hard work into becoming a player with a high enough caliber to be recruited by Duke in the first place.

Surely then, the opportunity cost for time spent training, in exchange for the waiver of crippling debt, cannot be offset by a work-study job that pays minimum wage minus taxes. Alternatively, only about two percent of college athletes make it big. Specifically, only 1.1 percent of basketball players and 1.5 percent of football players play in the NBA and NFL, respectively.

So athletes who believe that they should be paid because they could be making money as pros already have tremendous odds stacked against them. Even then, statistically, being the No. 1 draft pick doesn't guarantee an extremely successful career; between 1990 and 2014, only 80 percent of players drafted in the No. 1, 2, and 3 spots have averaged at least 10 points in the NBA. Those picked outside the top 12 have a fewer than 30 percent chance.

Now, the debate moves to exploitation. Big sports schools make a lot of money through their athletic programs; Texas A&M made an average of $148 million per year over three years through its football team alone. The argument evolves to say that if a school makes money from making athletes miss school to play in revenue-making games and uses player likeness to boost publicity and admissions, then the athlete is being exploited as he or she fulfills the duties of a professional without being rewarded for doing so. The NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament is a prime example of this.

I have two counters to this argument. First off, an athlete gains a lot more from an established school, be it brand exposure or an elite platform to showcase their talent, than the other way around. Zion Williamson's fall against North Carolina sparked outrage; why should the likely future No. 1 NBA draft pick risk his potentially successful (and lucrative) NBA career for a team that will give him nothing?

To consolidate his position as a top draft pick, Williamson needed Duke. What better than a school led by legendary coach Mike Krzyzewski, who has led Duke to 14 ACC Championships, 12 Final Four appearances, and five National Championships, to help a young athlete emotionally and physically mature and get ready for the big leagues? In what world would have Nike's stock value dropped by $1.1 billion if a top high school basketball player's shoe had blown up in a local game?

The platform these schools provide is only made possible by the heavy reinvestment of profits into state-of-the-art athletic facilities, gear, exclusive dorms and cafeterias, world-renowned athletic staff, and the automatic propulsion of athletes to celebrity status before they even step foot on the college campus. One cannot quantify the effect of Duke on Williamson's personal brand, bolstered by him being named ACC Rookie and Player of the Year, as it requires the calculation of many intangible variables. When less than two percent of college athletes go pro and even fewer make it big, I think that demanding extra compensation on top of a free education and star-treatment for four years at big sports school is misuse of a privilege to be able to carry your passion with you to the next level.

My fellow student athletes and I may have received some leeway in the academic realm of our acceptances to college as a reward for our athletic prowess, as while growing up we invested the time that could have been spent studying to pursue our athletic goals. I believe we deserve this flexibility because we have earned it and proudly represent our school for four years, but demanding monetary compensation is an abuse of this privilege.

Secondly, the NCAA Tournament accounts for 90 percent of the NCAA's annual budget. All the profits are divided amongst participating conferences in a complex long-term pay structure, and the NCAA retains only four percent of the money made during March Madness, which largely goes towards their own operating costs. Larger conferences divide profits and send them to member schools, while smaller conferences use most of the money for their own expenses, with very little transferred to member schools.

Moreover, only one-third of schools made a profit or broke even on their basketball programs in the 2013-2014 school year. Louisville topped the earning charts with $24.2 million, an amount which likely went to support most of the non-revenue-making sports.

The myth of schools and the NCAA holding on to revenue without distribution is a harmful one; the fixed costs of athletic programs are aplenty, especially when it comes to modernizing facilities, providing scholarships, and paying for good recruiting for all sports. I believe that there is no real merit in demanding compensation for labor because the profits aren't stagnant - they pay for operating costs like administration, staff, and other overhead.

Lastly, I think that student athletes mainly continue to play their sports at the collegiate level because competition and training become an integral part of us. Personally, tennis has been my life since I was three years old. Growing up, it was not only therapeutic, but it became intertwined with my identity and sense of self. I moved to the United States from India at the age of 12 to pursue my dream of playing professional tennis.

On the eve of my 16th birthday, while fulfilling a lifelong dream of playing for India at the Youth Olympic Games, I was told that I had torn my shoulder and would have to take three months off. I had felt that sharp pain for a year, but in the chaos of pushing myself to get to the next level, I didn't want to stop.

My body wanted to stop, and, consequently, my mind took a dark dive.

Although I started the recruiting process really late, Penn saved me from my spiral. For 15 years, my happiness had been inextricably linked with how I performed on a tennis court, and Penn made me believe that I could be so much more. My mental health suffered immensely because of underperformance on the court in college; my grades slipped and I fell into a black hole of self-destruction where I blocked out any light from entering and helping me out. The sheer joy of being able to represent something bigger than myself and play alongside teammates whom I love dearly not only helped me rebuild myself, but also changed my vision of who I want to be in the future.

College athletics helped me emotionally mature and developed my character in ways that no other activity ever could, and I am all the better for it. The relationships I've formed along the way, be it with the staff at the tennis center, or with the school itself, have enriched my college experience beyond measure. At no point did I ever think of monetary compensation; I just felt grateful for every moment I got to hold a tennis racquet, all the pain included.

Don't get me wrong, Penn can do a lot more for its athletes, and one of those many improvements is excusing absences for varsity athletes who miss class to represent Penn in competitions.

However, as a second-semester senior on the brink of leaving competitive tennis forever, I couldn't imagine college without athletics and would do it all over again in a heartbeat - even without any compensation.

OJ SINGH is a College senior from New Delhi, India and an Associate Sports Editor for The Daily Pennsylvanian. She is also a member of Penn women's tennis. She can be reached at .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singh | I'm a Penn athlete and we shouldn't be paid. Here's why.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week, Charlie Dolgenos, a fellow DP staffer, wrote a column on why college athletes should be paid. I'm about to ostracize myself from at least half of the athletics community by arguing why student athletes should not be paid for participating in amateur sports.

# data[].attributes.body
The Perspective (Article 5)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CBS Sports and Turner paid over $1 billion a yearfor broadcasting the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament up until 2023. Until now, the broadcasts' college sports stars themselves had no chance of receiving much of that sum (at least not directly). However, the NCAA recently decided to allow college athletes to financially benefit from the use of their names, images and likeness. This decision follows the move byseveral states, led by California, to pass laws allowing the same right, which has been part of a longtime debate about whether college athletes should be paid or not. The question arises primarily regarding football and basketball student-athletes, since they bring in most of the money.

Here are three arguments for and three arguments against paying college athletes:
The difficulty to implement is no excuse
An important argument coming from those who oppose paying college athletes is the expected difficulty involved with implementing such a move. The following are just some of the questions that pinpoint the complexities: Who will pay the college athletes (the NCAA or colleges)? How often will they receive pay? Will there be a salary cap? The main question regards the equitable application of paying college athletes, namely who will get paid and who won't. The details of the new NCAA rules are still being discussed, and will need input from different state legislators and sports associations.

However, since the debate was first sparked over the NCAA's income from broadcasting, the answer seems simple: Theoretically, the athletes to get paid should the ones playing the sports that bring in the big money, namely, men's college basketball and football players. College basketball and football players in particular are the ones who provide a good time for fans who are willing to pay to watch the games, so they deserve to get paid. This is capitalism, and this is how it works in America. In its ruling, the NCAA has distinguished between amateur athletes and potential professional athletes, i.e., those most likely to be recruited by professional teams. Time will tell who ultimately benefits from this decision.
Athletes risk their body and are exposed to permanent damage
One of the best aspects of college sports is the players' enthusiasm. Their love and passion for their respective game is admirable and infectious. But, there is a downside to it; in their fervor to play their best, many college athletes suffer serious injuries that sometimes prematurely end their career.

Setting aside the disturbing fact that a career-ending injury will stop their scholarship, those college athletes put their bodies at risk of permanent damage, without being paid. Hurting your knee might leave you limping for the rest of your life. Suffering concussions can cause dementia and depression, not to mention CTE. Those college athletes who put their bodies on the line for each training session and game they play deserve to be paid for the health risks they are taking.
There's big money involved in college sports anyway
It`s common to think paying college athletes can detract from the purity of the game and ruin that magic. But it won`t. The passion fans see on the court or field is attributed to the fact that there is no money involved.

However, that's not exactly accurate. Big companies are profiting off of branding college athletes, namely, asking them to wear brand apparel during games without paying them to do so. As such, these players feel used. And rightly so. The new rule allowing them to get paid shows that the NCAA and fans are really concerned about preserving the purity of college sports.

Three Reasons Why College Athletes Should Not Get Paid
The difference for college athletes is marginal in term of money
If salaries were to replace scholarships in college sports, athletes would not earn much more. In fact, an impressive $100,000-a-year salary for a college athlete would grant him only a few hundred dollars more per year than a scholarship. According to Money.com, a full athletic scholarship at an NCAA Division I university is about $65,000 a year. This includes tuition, room, board, and books (if you enroll at a college with high tuition). In contrast, a salary will be subjected to federal and state income taxes. Therefore, out of the $100,000, a net of $65,100 will remain for the student. The difference is marginal.
Earning big money too soon can be harmful
People argue that paying collage athletes will help create a sense of financial awareness for them. However, in reality, poor investments, trusting unethical financial advisors and lavish spending habits are some of the main reasons professional athletes find themselves broke after they retire, according to ESPN documentary, "Broke." Without sound financial education, young college athletes may not be equipped to handle so much money.
Paying big money for college students miss the purpose of college
College is about preparing oneself for real life. It is supposed to provide students with tools and abilities to succeed after college. In that manner, college athletes are no different than other college students who practice or intenr in hospitals, law firms or advertising agencies for little to no money. So why should athletes be get paid while the others don't?

A lot of young adults today are impatient and lack the ability to delay gratification. College can teach them a great life lesson: in real life, you have to work hard and wait for your chance. Paying big money to any college student, athlete or academic is far from being the ideal preparation for life.

The Bottom Line: Paying big money to college athletes defeats the purpose of college as a preparatory lesson for life, especially when the monetary difference between a salary and a scholarship is marginal. On the other hand, not paying athletes who risk serious long-term injuries is morally wrong. Was the NCAA right to change the current practice?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CBS Sports and Turner paid over $1 billion a year for broadcasting the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament up until 2023. Until now, the broadcasts' college sports stars themselves had no chance of receiving much of that sum (at least not directly).

# data[].attributes.headline
College Athletes Getting Paid? Here Are Some Pros And Cons

# data[].attributes.subject
College Athletes Getting Paid? Here Are Some Pros And Cons

# data[].attributes.body
Huff Post (Image 1)

# data[].attributes.headline
College athletes are worth millions. Should they be paid like it?

# data[].attributes.subject
College athletes are worth millions. Should they be paid like it?

# data[].attributes.body
Penn State (Image 2)

# data[].attributes.headline
Writing a "Should College Athletes Be Paid" Essay

# data[].attributes.subject
Writing a "Should College Athletes Be Paid" Essay

# data[].attributes.body
Essay State (Image 3)

# data[].attributes.headline
Autcher's Art: Should college athletes get pay for the play?

# data[].attributes.subject
Autcher's Art: Should college athletes get pay for the play?

# data[].attributes.body
Michigan Radio (Image 4)

# data[].attributes.body
The Paw Print (Image 5)