Why College Athletes Should Not Be Paid

College sports are a major part of American culture. College athletes devote hours upon hours a week to their sports training, but unfortunately, sports can take up a lot of time and distract from other important activities. This can harm academics, as athletes have to balance sports and academics, especially at a college. Participating in sports is almost like working a part-time job and having to balance school too which can be difficult to do, and focus may be rendered on one task and not both. Furthermore, athletes will be on scholarships too, which is why college athletes should not be paid. As a start to things, something that may not pop out to most people when lingering on the topic is how each college athlete would have to be paid

Research.com has listings under the cons of paying college athletes. One reason paying college athletes would not work is the fact that most college sports fans are almost guaranteed to pick between the sports of men's and women's basketball and football. So with those three sports being the cream of the crop. They draw in the most attention and also the most revenue for the school by being broadcast on television and other things like ticket sales and many other things. So if basketball is for both men and women with the addition of football being the money maker for schools the student-athletes that participate in those sports would be receiving the most amount of money. And for the other sports a school would have to offer would be getting the leftovers from what the ¨Main event¨ sports and the student-athletes

So receiving thousands of dollars could lead to many different distractions from academics. Especially if balancing sports and academics is already hard enough. The NCAA states in an interview with The Chicago tribune that college athletes already earn endorsement deals and other contracts, and tend to study less that is not the only reason the NCAA has brought to be against college athletes being paid. In the same Chicago Tribune interview, the NCAA states that if an ¨athlete was being paid and it significantly changed their lifestyle," NCAA President Mark Emmert testified in a previous federal antitrust case, "they probably would not be living in a residence hall. They probably would not be eating in the cafeteria, they probably would not be as — as active a member or participant in the life of a campus." ( quote taken from here. ) This shows a lifestyle change within the student-athlete. Which for the school is not good as they already funded their own money towards the athlete to provide them with a full-ride scholarship toward the