The average Division 1 football player dedicates an average of forty-three hours a week to his or her sport, three hours more than the typical American professional work-week. While more and more money continues to be poured into college athletic programs for nicer facilities and high salaries for coaches, college athletes continue to not be paid. Many individuals believe that this is an unfair practice and college athletes "deserve" more money, however I strongly disagree with this statement. Although college athletes do not receive cash salaries for their athletic performance, athletes still receive fair compensation through athletic scholarships, improved opportunities and resources than the general student body, and publicity; therefore, athletes should not be paid. Paying athletes will lead to many problems including equality issues and the debate of fairness between different size academic institutions not being able to pay their athletes the same amount.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association was founded in 1906 and was created in order to regulate and establish some type of competition and rules to the over 1,000 academic institutions with athletic programs at the time (Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica). Over the last several decades, the National Collegiate Athletic Association has become increasingly more commercialized and has quickly turned into 6 billion-dollar a year industry (US News). While college sports and the NCAA continue to generate more and more money, the athletes do not receive any financial compensation. Over the last several decades, many individuals have come up with ways in order to start paying student athletes. These ideas include a monthly stipend of money or turning the whole concept of college sports into a form of free agency (Soloman). However, none of these ideas were ever adopted by the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The NCAA has justified this by using the term "amateurism" when referring to their athletes and how the college level should be a time for an individual to focus on his or her skills until they make the progression into a professional league.

This issue on whether or not college athletes should be paid is important because the National Collegiate Athletic Association and college sports has become such a big and profitable business in America over the last several decades. While some individuals argue that college athletes should be paid because of how much money the NCAA is bringing in, they are forgetting or refusing to look deeper into the facts. Most universities with athletic programs today are not turning a profit and could not afford to pay their student-athletes (Hobsen). Also, the amount of scholarships, programs, and preferences given to student-athletes is more than enough and some could argue they receive too many benefits and this is unfair to the average college student. This topic is engaging because there are a lot more factors that go into the decision of whether or not to pay student athletes than people are aware of. Throughout the research process I examined many sources and opinions and was able to successfully develop a strong argument of why student-athletes should not be paid.

College athletes, especially at large academic institutions have many more advantages presented to them than the average college student. Large academic institutions pour millions of dollars every year into programs and resources such as free tutoring, one on one advisement, and better athletic, academic, and housing facilities for their athletes (Molnar). Most of these resources provided to student-athletes at large universities are not available to the general student body. In a study conducted by the American Institutes for Research, researchers found that in the average university with a D-1 football program spends 6.7 times more per individual athlete as they do per individual student (Desrochers). This includes the money that goes into college-athlete's athletic requirements but also academic requirements. Student-athletes receive special academic support and have access to academic advisors provided specifically just for student athletes. The National Collegiate Athletic Association also provides resources to schools as a part of a program called the Academic Improvement Fund, geared to helping student-athletes succeed inside and out of the classroom (Molnar). Many individuals who believe college-athletes should be paid, argue that the NCAA should provide money to athletes in order to support their daily lives off the field. However, the academic improvement fund is money set aside by the NCAA, given specially to athletes geared to do just that. 

Aside from athletics and academics, college athletes also receive free medical care as part of being an athlete for the school. Student-athletes are also allowed to pay disability insurance for the future on their potential earning salary as a professional athlete. In other words, these college-athletes are getting insurance for free. Most Division 1 programs also hire nutritionist to work with student-athletes to carefully plan out what they are eating (Molnar). Student-athletes have many more advantages when it comes to money invested in them by the universities then the regular college student. This is why athletes should not be paid. The amount of money that goes into paying each individual student athletes 

While college athletes do not receive cash payments for the participation in their respective sports, they receive thousands of dollars every year for not only athletic but a variety of different scholarships. Over 150,00 student athletes receive over 2.4 billion of athletic scholarships form the college and university members of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, each year (Petchesky). However, the average student graduates with 35,000 dollars in student loan debt. In the past decade alone, NCAA schools have given over 17 billion dollars through sports scholarships (Petchesky). Many argue that the money generated is greatly higher than the average loss of money given in athletic scholarships. However, along with the money given out in athletic scholarships, universities are investing so much in facilities that there isn't enough money left over for a stipend for its athletes. This money provided through athletic scholarships is also money not available to the general student. Millions of dollars every year is given out in athletic scholarships and that is more than enough compensation for what these individuals do on the field. As a result of athletic scholarships, many of these athletes are receiving an either reduced or free college education, something not given to the regular college student. In addition to scholarships, Division 1 student athletes have access to over 75 million dollars from Student Assistance aid available to them. This money is used in many different ways including "helping student-athletes fly home in case of family tragedy, to buy them a winter coat, or any other clothing necessity they can't afford themselves" (Molnar). Student-athletes are already being financially supported on and off the field significantly more than the normal college student is. Some would argue that student-athletes are already receiving to much and as a result this is unfair to the normal students at these academic institutions.

Publicity and preparation for life after college is a major advantage given to student-athletes that is not readily available to normal students. Being a student-athlete, especially at the Division 1 level instills valuable skills such as time management, leadership, work ethic, and being able to work with other individuals in order to succeed and achieve a common goal (Molnar). These skills are applicable to life after college whether or not that individual wants to pursue a job as a professional athlete or in the working world. At the Division 1 level, student-athletes who want to continue on after college to play their sport professionally are given all the opportunities to succeed. Especially at large Division 1 academic institutions, college-athletes are given elite facilities and coaches to make sure they perform at the highest level. Large academic institutions are also able draw recruits from professional teams looking just at athletes from that one school. College sports such as Division 1 men's football and basketball sign multimillion dollar contracts with television companies so they can air their games (Meshefejian). Athletes in these sports are then broadcasted nationwide making it very easy for professional scouts to analyze their play, get their name out into the public and increase the possibility that these student-athletes play at the next level.

Many articles in favor of paying student-athletes argue that since athletics takes up a majority of the student's time, the National Collegiate Athletic Association should drop the term "student athlete" and let those individuals choose whether or not to attend classes. Along with paying student-athletes, student-athletes getting excuse from missing classes and assignments is unfair to normal students. Academic institutions such as St. Edwards University have exceptions for student-athletes built into their class policy which states that "participation in athletic competition will necessitate a student-athlete's absence from class and/or assignments" (St. Edwards). Student Athletes get preference when it comes to missed class time but also when signing up for classes. Athletes meet with special one on one advisors to pick out the schedule with the perfect class times to best work around practices. These student-athletes are guaranteed spots in the classes which work best for them however, regular students have to fight to get classes, especially at larger universities and most of the time do not end up getting the schedule exactly how they need it. This practice is unfair to regular students and ties back to the idea that student-athletes are already getting more than enough for being athletes and should not be paid by the university of National Collegiate Athletic Association to play.

Looking at the argument of not paying college athletes from another perspective, paying athletes would lead to many questions and inequality issues. One main equality issue is whether all athletes should be paid even though the only revenue producing sports are men's basketball and football. The 2014 March Madness basketball tournament generated more than 1.15 billion dollars in revenue from television ads for the National Collegiate Athletic Association, while men's football 7.3 billion throughout the 2014 season (Tracy). While Division 1 men's football and basketball seem to generate these huge profits, all other college men's and women's sports operate at a loss. This disparity of money raises the question of whether every athlete should be paid, even if their sport does not make money. Many articles found during the research process that are in favor of paying athletes believe in only paying men's football and basketball players however, I strongly believe this would cause many issues among athletes in other sports who put in just as much time and effort.

Gender issues and gender inequality would also become a major issue if the NCAA decided to only pay athletes in revenue producing sports. If men's basketball players started to get paid it would become an equally issue if the women's team did not also get paid even though women basketball operates at a financial deficit. If athletes were going to be paid, the NCAA would end up having to pay all athletes of all sports and that would not work because not all universities have that extra money. This is another reason why athletes can not be paid for play.

Another problem with paying athletes is that many universities today are already over investing in their athletic programs to the point were the athletic programs are operating at a financial loss. Most universities simply do not have the money to pay student-athletes a stipend for playing. Universities are spending more and more on better facilities and coaches to attract potential recruits. Since 2004, the maintenance and spending on athletic facilities went from 10.5 million dollars a year to 38.2 million dollars a year in 2014 (Hobsen). The vast majority of athletic programs outside of the "power five conferences" should lose money because they lack the television contracts and endorsements of a large university. However, only one percent of universities in the power five conferences, these universities being Ohio State, Texas, and Alabama, were able to bring in enough money to cover their cost in 2014 (Hobsen). Student-athletes should not be paid because universities are all ready over investing into athletic facilities and coaches to the point where their athletic programs are losing money. With the way college athletics is set up now there is simply not enough money.

Another equality issue raised by trying to pay student-athletes is whether or not student athletes from universities with big athletic budgets should be paid the same as students from smaller universities with less money in their athletic programs. If larger universities were able to pay their athletes more than smaller academic institutions, that would cause an unfair disparity of talent throughout college sports. Big universities and large athletic programs would be able to attract the best recruits because they would be able to pay them more. Not paying players keeps them grounded and keeps them making decisions on what is important to them like the relationships they make or the environment they want to put themselves in instead of just following the money.

A good alternative to the argument of whether or not student athletes should be paid to play is to let these athletes market themselves. Allowing college athletes to market and "brand" themselves in order to make money, leaves how much that student-athlete gets for their athletic performance up to that individual (Givens). The National Collegiate Athletic Association would not be entitled to pay any athlete any sum or stipend of money, meaning there wouldn't be any issues about equality among different athletes and sports. However, the National Collegiate Athletic Association today has a big problem with this idea and strongly uses the word "amateurism" to prevent its athletes from being able to market themselves and make money. With the over commercialization and market value of college sports, student-athletes should not be paid a stipend to play by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, however they should be allowed to sell themselves to the public if they choose to.

Looking at this argument from the opposite perspective, many people believe that because student-athletes work so hard in their individual sports, they "deserve" more money. JOPERD magazine released an article advocating the NCAA pay student-athletes a stipend and how student-athletes are abused for the betterment of their universities teams. A poll conducted by JOPERD where they interviewed a group of student-athletes at various universities, found that 85% of student-athletes believe what they are receiving in return for athletics is inadequate (JOPERD). While student athletes are required to put in a lot of time into their respective sport and sacrifice their bodies for the successful of the team, they are more than fairly compensated and receive money and benefits not open to the normal college student. Different students work just has hard in a variety of different areas such as in the music department or working on a research grant given to the school, however they are not compensated nearly as much if anything for putting in the same amount of work. This is why student-athletes should not be paid.

Student athletes are not paid for playing their respective sports however they are more than fairly compensated through athletic scholarships, improved opportunities and resources than the general student body, and preparation for life after gradation. Paying athletes would be hard to regulate among different sized institutions which have different budgets fro their athletic programs. Many problems including equality issues would result because of this not every collegiate sport makes money and not every university makes money through their athletic program. While the NCAA can not pay their athletes, student athletes should be allowed to market themselves and sell themselves to the public (Givens). The National Collegiate Athletic Association would not have to monitor that money and any money made by that individual is up to them. This is something the National Collegiate Athletic Association should implement and would be a good solution heading into the future.

