Over the past couple of years there have been numerous arguments over whether college athletes should be paid or not. Division I athletes have been pouring their hearts out day after day, week after week, for their universities. With television contracts and shoe deals alone, the athletes are really bringing in the money. I guess you could argue that an athletes scholarship is enough to compensate, but are they? But, I say they shouldn't be paid. I think an athletic scholarship is enough. But there are many pros and cons to this debate, views that are shared by many. I still sympathize with college athletes because I use to play college football and I can tell you it's not an easy task to play sports and attend school full time. A pure athlete plays the game simply because he loves it. Some athletes play the game to further there professional prospects while others simply play to earn a scholarship to attend college.
             Professionalizing college sports by paying athletes money will cause more problems in the long run. How would the money be divided up between the sports? Questions like, will women's sports get a fare shack of proceeds. How do you determine which athletes get the most money? People would still complain and maybe more so. You would still have female athletes or athletes from sports that make less money wanting their cut. In the pros this is a legitimate problem because franchises cannot compete. In college athletics it comes down to the fact of who gets paid and how much. In the long run it will just create more problems. College sports can be better than pro sports because almost all of the athletes play for the love of the game. In the pros it can be all about the money. On the other hand professionalizing college athletics has an upside. There are many athletes who want to be able to support their families financially and would be able to do so while attending college. I also think that it'll cut down on the number o...