Should College Athletes be Paid?

Although the NCAA makes over $800 million a year, the universities are not exactly sitting in a pile of cash. The revenue the NCAA brings in annually is redistributed to academic enhancement, conference grants, sports sponsorships, student assistance funds and grants-in-aid. College athletes already have huge perks, there is no fair market, and playing a college sport is like having an internship.

College athletes are already getting paid with athletic scholarships that are worth between $20,000-$50,000 a year which means most college athletes are being reimbursed with more money than the average american makes in a year. Traveling around the United States and the rest of the world is another perk college athletes receive. When playing a college sport the athletes travel, for free, to various locations to play an opponent including California, Florida, and Hawaii. There are also various basketball tournaments like the battle for Atlantis and Puerto Rico tip-off which are in other countries. College athletes also get amazing resources at their fingertips. College athletes have the advantage of sporting equipment, use of a state of the art training facilities along with assistance from medical staff and tutors. College athletes receive all these perks and it doesn’t cost them one cent.

College football and basketball are the sports that make the most money. One argument that "pay for play" supporters uses is that college athletes are worth a fortune but in reality, they aren’t worth anything because of NBA and NFL rules. The NBA has a rule that athletes must wait a year after high school to become eligible to play. The NFL requires an athlete to wait three years after high school to be eligible for the draft which makes athletes right out of high school worth almost zero.There is not a fair market when colleges pay the athletes because the large universities will pay more to the athletes than smaller universities giving them an unfair advantage. If a cap is put into place, universities will continue to do under the table deals to have an edge on the competition, giving an unfair market when recruiting which would solve nothing. There is no fair market for college athletes when it comes to their value and potentially paying them.

Playing a college sports is like an internship. Players gain experience in their field of business. The experience will help them get a job in the pros where they will make a lot of money. Athletes also get to use their college stats and games to put into their resume similar to an ordinary internship. Playing college sports gives the athlete media exposure that helps get their name out into the business and build a network of connections like you do in an ordinary internship .  College sports serve as an internship to play pro sports for college athletes.

In conclusion, I support the stance of not paying college athletes. I have proven college athletes get a lot of perks for free that they otherwise would not receive including: large scholarships to attend college for little to no fee, they travel to various locations, and they have many resources at their fingertips. I have proven that there is no fair market for colleges and their athletes because of professional sporting rules, unfair amount of money for large universities and unfair tactics if cap is in place. I have proven that college sports serves as an internship for college athletes because of the experience, resume building and exposure they receive. With all the information stated, college athletes should not be paid for playing in the NCAA.

I would be fine with student athletes having the option of choosing between a scholarship or a check that is equivalent in value to the scholarship.

What are your thoughts?
Some info provided by Sports Illustrated, Newsday, ESPN. Bleacher Report.