Pros And Cons Of College Athletes Paid

The question ”should college athletes be paid,” has been highly debated over the past couple years. College sports are on the rise and bringing more and more money in every year,In 2014, Texas A&M made over 190 million dollars off their sports teams alone(e.g. Malcolm Lemmons, “College Athletes Getting Paid? Here Are Some Pros And Cons.”,The Huffington Post)! This is in part why I believe that college athletes should get paid. There are three main reasons that can back my belief up, those reasons are: Players may stay longer, gives them the compensation they deserve, helps to attract talent.

Nowadays there are progressively more players going to college for one year then going to play in their respective professional leagues. The opportunity to make that kind of money and do what they love on a bigger scale makes the choice irrelevant for most. If we allow college athletes to make money, it will draw more attention to college sports and allow them to be fiscally sustained. College athletes will get a better education if we allow them to get compensated for playing for their schools. Keeping the athletes in longer will ultimately help the school as a whole and the players.
Colleges have gotten away with using players personal images to make money without getting their consent in the past. For example, in 2014 former UCLA player Ed O’Bannon spearheaded an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA(e.g. Lester Munson,High Court passes on NCAA case,but players still could get paid, ESPN). This lawsuit was about the player’s faces being used in college basketball games without the actual players getting any compensation.This is just one example of how colleges can use players to make millions while not giving the athletes behind it any