College Athletes Should Be Paid

Opponents of paying college athletes claim paying these athletes creates an atmosphere of work rather than an atmosphere of hard work and fun. This work atmosphere would ruin the fun of watching college sports; also, opponents claim college athletes already get compensated through both scholarships and other numerous benefits. Colleges should not pay their athletes because the athletes already possess multiple benefits. One of these benefits would include compensation through scholarships and other academic aid programs. Proponents often remark that a scholarship is not enough compensation for a college student; however, One of the biggest issues plaguing the youth of America currently is college debt, and according to Delaney and Williams,

Graduating with less debt is also a great pay off since only a small percentage of college athletes go on to play professional, and out of those that do go professional, even a smaller amount will continue to play for years to come. According to research from the NCAA, “Fewer than 2 percent will be drafted into the NFL” (Delany & Williams, 2017, p. 1). This means most college athletes, when they graduate, will be entering the workforce, and they will need to be able to get a job and pay bills. Paying these bills will be easier if these graduates do not need to worry about their students loans. Colleges and Universities are schools, and the primary focus at a school is education. The whole reason people go to college is to receive an education ( Hobson & Guskinso, 2017, p. 2); therefore, to receive a free education at a place where education is the prime focus is a great opportunity. College athletes also receive other benefits such as meals, tutoring, and room and board. According to Rick Burton, “Many top players receive tuition, books, tutoring, housing, meals, clothing,

The only two college sports that generally bring in profits are football and basketball. In addition, not all football and college programs generate profits. According to Brian Burnsed, “Expenses exceeded generated revenue at all but 20 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision” (2017, p. 1). This means that the cost of football to the school was greater than the money that football generated. This shows that all but twenty schools in the football bowl subdivision are losing money. This means that there is no room in the budget of these schools to pay their athletes. Even if the college made money from a sport there still would not be enough to pay its athletes. Frequently, football and basketball programs’ profits are used to balance out the programs that lose money such as baseball and golf. Therefore, if colleges started to pay their athletes, part of the profits from the football and basketball programs would be used to pay the athletes. Bob Williams states: “If schools had to pay football and men’s basketball players, they might not be able to afford athletic programs that don’t make as much money” (2017, p.1). This shows that colleges would have to cut out other programs that lose money if they were to pay college athletes. Cutting other sports programs is unfair because now athletes in another sport lose their scholarship because other athletes want to be