Over recent years the accusations of NCAA violations on players who received benefits from boosters have lead some to one central question, should college athletes get paid to play? With all the workings of boosters and violations on players receiving benefits, it seems logical that the college athletes should share in the billion dollar operation that is college sports. However if we are going to pay college athletes, then they are not college athletes at all.

College sports, specifically football and basketball, interest people because of the passion of the players and the undeniable effort they give for their school. This does not mean that pro athletes do not give effort, but some of the magic moments professional sports cannot be compared to the great efforts that come out of the college level.

Paying college athletes would cause even greater levels of complication than boosters cause. If college athletes get paid, then they need contracts, and if they get contracts then they become professional athletes. I do not know how I would feel if I saw Tim Tebow getting paid five million dollars to go to the University of Florida or Kevin Durant getting paid for one year at Texas before he heads to the NBA. The truth is that college athletes receive scholarships so they are already paid to play.

 Major universities give out scholarships every year to athletes and this gives athletes a great opportunity at an education and the potential to move to the professional level of athletics. College athletes get scholarships to have an opportunity to make money at a professional level, athletics or not. So if we are going to pay college athletes, why even have college sports?

Many say college athletes bring in so much money, that they should benefit from the wealth. However, they already do, FBS (Division I-A) football programs already have 85 scholarship players (Sports Illustrated). This means that 85 players on each major college football program already get paid to play by being exempt from the cost of a college education.

Sports Illustrated staff writer, George Dohrmann proposed a cut of scholarships for football players to 63. Dohrmann stated that this cut would provide the savings to pay the other members of the team. However, taking money from scholarship worthy players to give other players extra money does not seem right. Every student athlete should get an opportunity if they deserve it, but that opportunity should not include salary.

The paying of players at a college level would take the away the fundamental principle of college athletics, the athletes are in college. They are student athletes, so colleges reward them in education or preparation and not a pay check.

Every year the NCAA brings in a great amount of revenue from the athletes on the field, including 771 million dollars from the men’s basketball tournament (Sports Illustrated). However, the argument that the players do not receive what they deserve for their athletic success is ridiculous. If athletes were to be paid, only the college basketball and football players would receive substantial payment, and with the exception of walk-ons all of these players are on scholarship.

College athletes often get free tuition based on their athletic skills along with a great deal of publicity for themselves, so how can college athletes complain when they are rewarded heavier than every other college student. If universities start to pay college athletes, then we begin to prove that athletes are valued higher than students. Putting major college athletes on salary could potentially ruin the fundamentals of higher education.