Pros And Cons Of Paying College Athletes

Words: 695
Pages: 3

Over the past few years the argument of whether to pay college athletes or not to became a big deal. Paying student athletes may be one of the most controversial argument out there. Either way you look at it, whether you are for it or against it, there are arguments for each side. Paying student athletes would be mindless.
College Athletes are getting their education paid for by the university they are attending. These athletes are not just athletes. They are considered “student” athletes for a reason. The education comes first for these kids. The NCAA’s worry is that the main idea of going to college is education. Paying the athletes could lose that main idea (Johnson). The NCAA says, “Graduating from college is as important an achievement as winning on the field” (“Academics”). With the scholarship the athletes are receiving it allows them to go through college basically debt free. The pros already pay athletes to play sports (Johnson). The president of the NCAA, Mark Emmert states, “It’s called professional sports, and I love them, but that’s not
…show more content…
Sports would not become more competitive because of what happens in the pros. Players would want more money and not sign their contract until they get what they want. The athletes should not be bothered by how much time they are putting in each week because it is a privilege to play college athletics. Most college athletes are too immature to handle the money they would be given. It is not the professionals, once the athlete makes the pro’s they will reap all the opportunities they get. Although the NCAA is an eleven billion dollar organization, the NCAA hands out billions of dollars in scholarship money (“Should Not”). Paying these college athletes would make them into employees of the school. There is no fair way to these athletes, no matter what way they get payed one side would find it as unequal treatment