A big dilemma that's being talked about a lot now is whether or not college athletes should be paid. There are pros and cons to both sides of the debate. One of the benefits of paying college athletes would be that it would provide monetary relief not only for the athlete, but also for the athlete's family, as families are usually the ones who have to deal with paying their student athlete child. The counter to this would be that the athlete is already receiving monetary aid through scholarships. Due to NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) rules, the student athlete is not even allowed to autograph anything or sell their memorabilia for money. Notable former college football stars Johnny Manziel and Todd Gurley were both suspended from playing in college for signing various items and making money from them. Manziel was suspended for the first half of the first football game of the season and Gurley was suspended for the first four games of the season. This rule was in effect until October 30 of this year 2019. On that day, the NCAA decided to allow college athletes to profit from their names, images and likeness. This is one way athletes can earn some kind of money to provide relief for their families and themselves. There are aspects that most people are not aware of and which could change the opinion of many. My opinion in this case would be that the student athlete should not be paid, primarily because the scholarships he receives are sufficient pay to play. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayThere are four main reasons I have for why the student athlete should not be paid. The first and foremost reason I stated earlier is because because the athlete is so gifted and talented, they have a plethora of colleges asking and begging to attend their college at a very low rate, if not for free. This is different from the non-student athlete, who begs and demands to attend college, for a much higher price. According to the official NCAA website, "NCAA Divisions I and II schools provide more than $2.9 billion in athletic scholarships to more than 150,000 student-athletes each year." Division III schools are not permitted to provide scholarships to athletes. The scholarship the student athlete receives pays for tuition, room and board, meals, fees and other eligible expenses. Having all these things taken care of is a huge convenience, and also a huge benefit in itself. This is, and should be, more than enough for the student athlete. Unlike non-athletes, the student athlete gains access to a college education through participation in sports. For the Division I level, the student athlete only needs to earn a 2.3 or 900 GPA on the SAT to be admitted to college. For the Division II level, however, the student athlete only needs to earn a 2.2 GPA and/or an 840 SAT score to be admitted to college (NCAA). The university may also pay for athletes to finish their bachelor's or master's degrees after they finish playing sports. However, the student athlete may also be eligible for academic scholarships along with financial aid programs. The second reason why the college athlete should not be paid is because there is not enough money to pay the coaches, employees and athletes. The argument is that there's a lot of money going into the athletic program, but what people don't understand is that there's just as much money going out of theathletic program. Universities spend large sums of money on investments to try to get more money for their athletic programs. Sometimes, these investments will prove positive. But other times these investments don't work. Since not all college sports make money, it wouldn't be fair anyway to pay only the top two sports that bring in money, which in most cases are football and basketball (Grffin). In an article written in 2016, Business Insider ranked the top 25 colleges and/or universities that bring in the most money for their school. After doing all the math, the total profit earned by the University of Louisville was $41,670,685, the highest in that year of $10,000,000. The Duke University basketball team grossed $31,255,570 that year. For football, the profit becomes much larger. For example, the number one school that made the most total profit was the University of Texas A&M football team, which grossed a total of $107 million last year (Forbes). With this, it would be unfair to athletes who play major sports that earn the most money to pay athletes whose sport earns a small amount of money. The number three reason why college athletes shouldn't be paid is because college athletes are not professional athletes. What distinguishes a college athlete from a professional athlete is that professional athletes have excelled at their sport and have worked hard enough to get paid to play. College athletes go to play in college knowing that there is an extremely low chance of becoming a professional athlete, so they should not be treated as such. Less than 2% of NCAA student athletes become professional athletes after playing in college (Mitchell). To put that into perspective, if you took a thousand athletes playing at the Division I level, just under only twenty of them would go on to play their sport at a professional level. Participating and taking part in a college sport is not a necessary job at all, as it is a requirement for scholarships. Playing and being part of the college atmosphere is more than enough for the college athlete. The experience alone is worth all the hard work and dedication the athlete has put in. The fourth and final reason why college athletes shouldn't be paid is clearly why college athletes may be very irresponsible with the money they receive. The athlete can purchase many unnecessary things with the extra money given to him, which could lead him to run out of money completely, which provides many complications not only to the athlete, but to the university itself along with the athletics department of the plan. Fox Sports Radio host and reporter Jason Whitlock has faced some backlash for what he said about college athletes being irresponsible with their money. He said, “I took athletes to the mall just to go eat.” I saw them buy Air Jordans and some gold chains with their Pell Grant Money. “ A Pell Grant is money the government gives to students who need it to pay for college. Unlike loans, these grants do not have to be repaid. Eligible students receive a specific amount each year under their program ( Big Future).Keep in mind: This is just one example.Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.All in all, college athletes have the opportunity of a lifetime to play a sport at the collegiate level appreciate it, but others may take it for granted the opportunity. They don't have to.