The notion, that student-athletes ought to be duly compensated for their labor, has grown popular in recent years. This notion is particularly prevalent in the two revenue-generating sports: football and men’s basketball. Colleges’ make millions upon millions or dollars as a byproduct of the efforts of student-letters. Given the cash, goodwill, and relevance that the efforts of student-athletes bring to their universities, it is understandable that some would take the position that student-athletes deserve a form of compensation greater than an academic scholarship (which is only guaranteed on a year-to-year basis). Whilst some would argue that an academic scholarship is sufficient payment for student-athletes, proponents of paying student-athletes would (correctly) point out that the pecuniary value of a scholarship is far less than what student-athletes would be able to receive on the free market. It is apparent that supporters of paying student-athletes are winning the argument, as polls have shown that with each passing year, the number of people who are for paying student-athletes …show more content…
The athletic department would likely have to dip into some of the revenue that they had generated through their endorsement deals, television rights, or conference revenue distributions to fund the program. It would also be up to the athletic discretion to determine which athletes would receive salaries (would athletes in non-revenue sports receive salaries?) and how much each player would receive (would star players receive a higher salary than other players?). I personally am against this solution as I am of the mind that universities shouldn’t pay salaries to anyone who isn’t involved in education and or research. Also this solution is, for all purposes, impractical, as only the largest athletic programs would have the funds needed to pay salaries to their