Pros And Cons Of Paying College Athletes

1392 Words6 Pages
Should college student athletes be paid for the services they offer during their years of study? This has been one of the biggest, ongoing debates in college sports for years. Successes of bigger schools such as, the University of Alabama and the University of Texas in today’s society are major contributors to this debate. Those that are pro-salary argue that college athletes bring in too much revenue at their schools not to be paid. In my opinion, college athletes should not get paid because they already receive a scholarship that pays for tuition, classes, and housing; they also would not perform up to their full potential and there’s no fair way to pay these athletes. First and foremost, college athletes should not get paid because they already receive scholarships. Which pay for academics, housing, and living expenses. When people think of paying college athletes for playing sports, they are not talking about a Division III athlete who has no chance at going pro. Instead, they are talking about the big time players, such as Cam Newton or Derrick Henry. These elite athletes almost always get their full tuition paid for, and sometimes more money in addition to scholarship benefits. “USA Today determined that a full men’s basketball scholarship can be worth $120,000 a year when factoring in goods, services, and future earnings” (NCAA). One good example of a scholarship fulfilling an athletes needs is the case of quarterback Kirk Cousins of Michigan State. Cousins pays
Get Access