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
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. In the pros it can be all about the money. There have already been too many scandals in college sports during the past decade. In the pros this is a legitimate problem because franchises cannot compete. College sports can be better than pro sports because almost all of the athletes play for the love of the game. On the other hand professionalizing college athletics has an upside. Athletes should know that if they work hard it all payoffs in the long run. How do you determine which athletes get the most money People would still complain and maybe more so. Also, it takes a lot of pressure of families who aren"tmt able to send money to their kids for other expenses. I also think that it"tmll cut down on the number of athletes who leave school early for the professional ranks. And paying these players will bring more controversy and turmoil to these prestiges"tms universities. In college athletics it comes down to the fact of who gets paid and how much.