Paid For Plays: Shoud College Athletes Get Paid

Quinn ThomasContributor IJune 14, 2010

INDIANAPOLIS - APRIL 05:  The Duke Blue Devils hold up the national championship trophy as they celebrate after their 61-59 win against the Butler Bulldogs during the 2010 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball National Championship game at Lucas Oil Stadium on April 5, 2010 in Indianapolis, Indiana.  (Photo by Andy Lyons/Getty Images)
Andy Lyons/Getty Images

The quest for greater revenues and T.V exposure to a seismic shift in college football with top programs Texas and Oklahoma possibly on the move to the Pac-10 to create a mega conference and to bring in mega dollars for those institutions have re-opened the discussion of whether students athletes should be provided compensation for competing in sports. The reason why this topic been re-opened is simple, there are some people who think that with all the money that these schools bring in during the season they should be able to provide the players with some form of spending to pay for things they may need. I myself would wonder if you can pay athletes, why not pay the medical students a stipend because they struggle just as much as student-athletes and spend just as much time making themselves better as a student athlete does. But ere are the pros and cons to this theory of paying athletes.


The positives to providing athletes with a stipend is that it would provide less opportunity for boosters to come in and make an offer for easy money to your player. Coaches wouldn't have to worry about their players getting work-study jobs to make a little money during the off-season, players can give a better effort with incentive and will also be more rested and have more time to be in the weight room.


With every positive, there is a negative. For example, paying a player will create a jealousy factor among students who are not athletes and then you have to figure in what athletes get paid because it would be difficult to pay every athlete because most schools have a multitude of different sports. Then do you pay the upperclassmen only.

I understand that some people think its a job and they should be paid but isn't a free education enough, is free apparel not enough. Athletes in the past never got paid (at least legally) so why change the rule. The NCAA has always been a "If it ain't broke don't fix it" type of organization and I would not expect them to change their stance or be deterred in any way to to this conference shifting that is going on in college football.