College sports is a front runner in popular culture today. Very few people are not effected by college sports when continuing their education after high school. While the majority of college students do not participate in NCAA rated sports, many students enjoy going to games or following their favorite teams and sports year round. The National Collegiate Athletic Association was founded in the early 20th century and at first "did not play a major role in governing collegiate athletics" (Smith, 13). As time went on, intercollegiate athletics grew and so did the number of students able to attend college after World War II with the help of government support for soldiers returning home from combat. The need for rules and a regulatory body increased so the association took on more responsibilities. The NCAA began to create championships, regulate recruiting, and enforce codes to keep universities in check (Smith, n.p.). Today, the NCAA oversees half a million college athletes, in 24 sports over 3 divisions (NCAA.org). For the small, yet talented, few that get the chance to continue their athletic career in college, there has been a rising debate on whether or not the benefits they receive as college athletes are sufficient enough for the work put in during their time in school. College athletes should remain unpaid due to the fact they already receive sufficient benefits, to maintain the amateur status the NCAA was founded on, and to prevent unfair matches between larger schools that can outbid smaller institutions for better athletes. 

Being a student athlete has its perks and are believed to be sufficient ways of compensation for their dedication to their sport. The most basic form of compensation universities give to their athletes is tuition and housing. While not every team member receives a full ride athletic scholarship, even a partial scholarship can be worth thousands of dollars and make it possible for a student to pay for an education they might otherwise have not been able to afford. It is common practice for teams to give their star players the majority of the scholarship money because they attribute the most to the teams' accomplishments and ultimately the athletic departments financial success. For example, the University of South Carolina Equestrian team consists of 40 riders and they are allotted 15 scholarships to give out amongst those girls. Many of the starters get full or almost full scholarships where the other girls will get partial scholarships still worth thousands of dollars and including housing (Major, n.p.). In addition to the financial help student athletes receive for tuition, housing, and meal plans; there are other added benefits to playing for a university. Many universities offer supportive services such as tutors, academic advisers, and state-of-the-art technology to its players often in private campus buildings that only athletes can gain access to (NCAA.org). The athletic building on the South Carolina campus is called The Dodie and it is located in athletic village with a private dining hall for student athletes of the university. Student athletes also usually have access to nutritionists, athletic trainers, textbooks, and medical care that the average student does not have the same privileges to. Another added benefit the NCAA offers to its Division I athletes is the Student Assistance Fund. This has a $75 million budget that students can access through their university offices to use for a variety of reasons, "from helping student-athletes fly home in the event of a family tragedy to purchasing a winter coat or other needed clothing that they might not be able to afford" (NCAA.org). Despite the argument that student athletes are not compensated enough for their efforts, this evidence shows that between the financial help and other benefits, student athletes are well taken care of and should not receive the salaries people are pushing for 

The National Collegiate Athletic Association's main focus is to create the foundation for college sports leagues while maintaining the athletes as amateurs; which is the main reasoning behind not paying participants. The NCAA has many rules when it comes to amateur eligibility but on a more basic level, amateurism is defined as "one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession" (Merriam Webster, n.p.). A professional is defined as "paid to participate in a sport or activity" (Merriam Webster, n.p.). By giving players a salary, they are now deemed professionals. When the NCAA was created "it established itself as a non-profit organization with amateurism acting as the foundation" (Grimmett, 828). The NCAA wanted to keep amateurism rules in place to keep the focus of college sports on what the students are really there to do which is to obtain a good education and to treat all of the student athletes as equals (NCAA.org). If universities were to start paying their athletes, then it pulls their focus out of the classroom and onto the field. Players will put their "career" first behind their education because there is a larger incentive to increase playing and practice time if it means they will get more money for their work. Even the professional leagues, that the lucky few will get the chance to play for after college, put the athletes' education first. Many of the leagues have rules in place to keep athletes in college for a sufficient amount of time before leaving to go pro. For example, in the National Football League "to be eligible for the draft, players must have been out of high school for at least three years and must have used up their college eligibility before the start of the next college football season" (NFL Football Operations). With this rule, the NFL forces football players to go to college for at least three years before coming to play for them. It is not written in the rule that players must go to college before entering the draft but it pushed them to get a higher education because if an athlete wants to play professionally they will need to keep practicing for that forced time out of the league so it is even more likely the will go to play for a university to continue working on their skills. It is still important to remember that students go to college to continue their education to be more prepared for the professional world ahead of them. Student athletes are, first and foremost, students and it should be kept as such. 

Sporting evens are no fun to watch or participate in if one team clearly has an advantage. If the NCAA allows universities to pay their athletes, they run the risk of more financially stable schools getting all of the talented players. It is true that not all teams are created equal today and teams' success change every season because the players come and go not to mention the fact that each year the team needs to acquaint the new players into the team dynamic. At the same time, certain schools would have more money to pay athletes with then others, widening this gap even further. By getting more money involved this "level playing field would be eviscerated" (Grimmett-Norris, 2). Players could also start making decisions about where to go to school based on how much money they would be paid that could effect their future. It is possible that an incoming freshman athlete could really like a certain school and love the team he is looking at but could be outbid by another one. This creates an unfair problem for that athlete because he might be forced to chose a school he will not get the same education or experience out of because he is forced to chose a school that can better support is family. By allowing payment of college athletes, students could be put in positions that are unfair to their circumstance. When uneven teams play each other and the games get boring, this could inadvertently effect the university as a whole. It is true that some students want to go to a school because they are known for good athletic teams that are fun to watch. When a school's teams drop in the ranks because of lack of funds to pay its athletes, it could effect the number of applicants to the university. Recent research has also shown "that a school's success in intercollegiate athletics attracts more donations from alumni" (Sanderson, n.p.). This could spiral into a negative economic impact on the universities and the NCAA would regret its decision as a whole. 

The largest argument to be made when it comes to why college athletes should be paid has to do with the billions of dollars in revenue that the NCAA and universities make off of player participation in all of these sporting events each year. There is something to be said for the fact that "the student-athletes, the ones largely responsible for the growth in revenue and popularity of collegiate sports, are entitled to their piece of the billion-dollar pie" (Grimmett-Norris, 2). Coaches of these million dollar teams are also well paid which seems unfair to the players who contribute to the team just as much as the coach. The concern is that legally our "nation's universities collectively cap their players' compensation, which in other businesses would violate Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, a criminal offense" (Sanderson, n.p.). The NCAA is not like other business, however, because it is still dealing in the education spectrum separate from the business world. It is unfair that the participants do not get to share in the profits, but it is just too risky to get them involved with that much money. Players would put the athletics first which is not why they are attending that university. The other question they would need to address would be how to pay the athletes of the less popular and grossing sports. Football and basketball, while being the highest grossing for the university, are not the only sports covered in the NCAA. It would go against NCAA policy to pay only the football and basketball players but it is true that they are the ones making the most money. This argument calls fairness into question as well. Fairness, education, and everything the NCAA stands for is jeopardized when people discuss paying athletes for their time.  

In conclusion, it would be a mistake for the NCAA to allow universities to pay their student athletes. Being a student athlete means there is one thing that matters more then the sport you play which is being a student and getting the education the university is providing to you. If the NCAA gives in to demands to pay the athletes it will undermine "the value of sports as a part of education" (Yankah, n.p.). However, there is something to be said that athletes should have the possibility of being compensated further. Many ideas have been discussed and some even implemented to give athletes the further compensation they deserve. Last year the National Collegiate Athletic Association allowed extra stipends to be given out to athletes to cover the "full cost of attendance". This allowed an extra $2,000 to be given out to cover the cost of extra expenses such as gas, food, and travel expenses, as a way of further compensating those athletes. Adding benefits like this would lessen the blow from fully paying college athletes salaries. Perhaps they could even raise the stipend a few thousand dollars to greater the benefits the athletes receive so they feel they are better being represented with the winnings while still following the rules of NCAA amateurism. Another alternative that has been discussed would be to allow the previously rejected idea of allowing players to make a profit off of video games and jersey sales with their name represented. If a players' name is used to sell those items, then they would receive a percentage of the sale. In this way they are not being paid by the university but just receiving some extra cash for their success on the field. Using this method of payment, the more popular players would make more money compensating them for the work and talent they present on the field. People would rather wear the jersey of one of the best players so the starters would make the most money meaning the profits are being shared to the right players and the universities are not unevenly paying the athletes because they do not control what customers buy. While the answer might not be clear yet as to the solution for additional benefits athletes should get, the fight is not over and there are good compromises that could come out of making a deal. 

