A big current dilemma that is being talked about a lot now is whether or not college athletes should be paid. There are pros and cons for both sides of the debate. One of the benefits of paying college athletes would be that it would provide monetary relief not only to the athlete, but also to their family, since families are usually the ones who have to pay for their student-athlete child. The opposition to this would be if the athlete already has financial aid in the form of scholarships. Due to NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) rules, the student-athlete is not even allowed to autograph anything or sell their own memorabilia to make money. Former college football stars Johnny Manziel and Todd Gurley were both suspended during their college years for signing several different articles and profiting 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 name, image and likeness. It's a way for athletes to earn money to help themselves and their families. There are aspects of this that most people are not aware of, which may change the opinion of many. My opinion in this case would be that the student-athlete should not be paid, primarily because the scholarships they receive are compensated enough to play. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay I have four main reasons why the student-athlete should not be paid. The first and foremost reason I mentioned earlier is that since the athlete is so gifted and talented, a plethora of universities are asking and begging them to attend their university very cheaply or even for free. This is different from the non-student athlete, who begs and asks to attend college, for a much higher price. According to the official NCAA website, “NCAA Division 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 allowed to award scholarships to athletes. The scholarship the student-athlete receives covers tuition, room and board, meals, fees and other eligible expenses. Having all of 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 has access to a college education through their participation in sports. For the Division I level, the student-athlete only needs to earn a 2.3 GPA or a 900 on their SAT to be admitted to the university. However, for the Division II level, the student-athlete only needs to achieve a GPA score of 2.2 and/or an SAT score of 840 to be admitted to the university (NCAA). The university may also pay athletes to complete their bachelor's or master's degrees after they finish playing sports. However, the student-athlete can also benefit from university scholarships as well as financial aid programs. The second reason the college athlete should not be paid is that there is not enough money to pay the coaches, employees, and athletes. The argument put forward is that there is a lot of money being investedin the athletic program, but what people don't realize is that there's so much money coming out of the athletic program. Colleges are spending a lot of money on investments to try to bring in more money for their athletic programs. Sometimes these investments will turn out to be positive. But other times, these investments don't work. Since not all college sports make money, this would not be the case. It would be fair in any way to pay only for the two most profitable sports, 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 all the calculations were done, the total profit generated by the University of Louisville was $41,670,685, which was the highest of that year, $10,000,000. The Duke University basketball team brought in $31,255,570 that year. For football, the benefits are much greater. For example, the school that made the biggest profit was the University of Texas A&M football team, which brought in a total of $107 million last year (Forbes). With this, it would be unfair to athletes who play the major sports that bring in the most money to pay athletes whose sport brings in a small amount of money. The third reason why college athletes shouldn't be paid is that college athletes shouldn't be paid. athletes are not professional athletes. What separates a college athlete from a professional athlete is that professional athletes have excelled at their sport and worked hard enough to get paid to play. College athletes enter the college game knowing that there is extremely little chance of becoming a professional athlete and therefore they should not be treated as such. Less than 2 percent of NCAA student-athletes become professional athletes after playing in college (Mitchell). To put things in perspective, if there were a thousand athletes playing at the Division I level, just under twenty of them would go on to play their sport at the professional level. Participating and taking part in college sports is by no means a necessary job, as it is a requirement for obtaining scholarships. Playing and being a part of the college atmosphere is more than enough for the college athlete. The experience alone is well worth all of the athlete's hard work and dedication. The fourth and final reason why college athletes should not be paid is clearly why college athletes might be very irresponsible with the money they are given. The athlete may buy many unnecessary things with the extra aid paid to him, which could lead to him being completely out of money, leading to many complications not only for the athlete, but also for the university itself as well as for the program's athletic department. Fox Sports Radio host and reporter Jason Whitlock faced backlash for what he said about college athletes being irresponsible with their money. He said: “I have driven athletes to the mall just to go eat. I've seen them buy Air Jordans and 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.