College sports is a front runner in popular culture today. Very few people are not effected by college athletics when continuing their education after high school. While the majority of college students do not participate in National Collegiate Athletic Association rated sports, many students enjoy going to games or following their favorite team year round. The NCAA 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 post World War II as a result of the G.I. Bill which gave government support to 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 the 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 the girls. Many of the starters get full or almost full scholarships, while the other girls will get partial scholarships that are still worth thousands of dollars and include housing (Major, n.p.). This practice, which is athletic department wide, is the most tangible way for the largest contributors to share in the university's profits. The entire roster is essential to a teams' accomplishments, but this is a way for the university to give back to the players that attribute the most to that success. 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 have access to nutritionists, athletic trainers, textbooks, and medical care that the average college 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 NCAA's main focus is to create the foundation for college sports leagues while maintaining the athletes as amateurs; this is the main reasoning behind not paying participants. When the NCAA was created "it established itself as a non-profit organization with amateurism acting as the foundation" (Grimmett, 828). 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.). Inversely, a professional is defined as "paid to participate in a sport or activity" (Merriam Webster, n.p.). By following these recognized definitions, the organization would go against its own moral groundwork because giving players a salary transforms them into professionals. 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: obtain a good education and treat all student athletes as equals (NCAA.org). If universities were to start paying their athletes, it pulls their focus out of the classroom and onto the field. Players will put their "career" first instead of their education because there is a larger incentive to increase playing 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). It is not written in the rule that players must go to college before entering the draft, but athletes need to stay in shape if they wish to continue their dream. With this bi law, the NFL compels football players to go to college for at least three years to keep practicing for that forced time out of the league and to continue working on their skills. With all of the above information in mind, it is important to remember that students go to college to continue their education and 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. Student athletes could start making decisions about where to go to school based on how much money they would be paid rather then where they would really like to continue their education. It is possible that an incoming freshman athlete could dream of going to a certain school and love the team he is looking at; however, he could be outbid by a larger university, ultimately changing his future. 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. The financial inequality of paying player would not only effect the individuals involved, but also the schools as a whole. It is true that not all teams are created equal today and teams' success change every season because the seniors must end their college experience to make room for the next class of freshman. With this new class entering universities each year, teams need to acquaint the fresh players into the new group dynamic. In addition to the skill variance with changing teams, the gap could be widened further if school were allowed to pay their players. Larger institutions that attribute more money to their athletic program would have the means to pay players higher salaries causing the best players to go to the bigger schools. By getting more money involved this "level playing field would be eviscerated" (Grimmett-Norris, 2). 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 engaging 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.). As stated before, sports are a huge driver for colleges. Student applications and alumni donations are actually effected by the success of the athletic department. Putting this strain on universities to find the money to pay their athletes creates a negative economic impact on the school 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.). Despite these arguments, the NCAA is not like other businesses because it is acting in the education spectrum. 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 athletics first, but that is ultimately 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. If the NCAA were to only pay the football and basketball players because they make them the most money, it would go against the associations policy to treat all student athletes as equals. 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 than the sport you play: 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 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. This would compensate them for the work and talent they present on the field. It is more common for people to wear the jersey of one of the best players, thereby giving starters the most profits. The revenue would then be shared amongst the better players, but the universities would not be held liable because they do not control what customers buy. While the answer might not yet be clear as to the solution of athlete compensation, the fight is not over and there are good compromises that could come out of making a deal. 

