College Athletes Should Not be Paid

In the article Why Should College Athletes Be Paid for 2025, the author proposes that college athletes need to be paid for their participation in college sports. The author claims that these athletes generate massive revenue for these universities and the NCAA from ticket sales, sponsorships, and media deals. The author points out that, given this kind of financial contribution, athletes should be entitled to a share of the profits in the form of salaries or stipends. Additionally, the article talks about the physical and emotionally taxing work that student-athletes are expected to do, which can compromise their grades and later career opportunities. The author also stresses that paying athletes would help solve equality problems, for instance, for athletes in nonrevenue sports who receive few resources or support.

In response to this position, I would like to state that college athletics make a lot of money for colleges, and college athletes contribute to their success. Regarding common ground, we can agree on the lack of importance of sports in college as a form of entertainment and the need for it as a crucial part of college life and a positive impact on the student, the community, and the university. Both sides agree that athletes should be respected and supported for dedicating their hard work to pursuing their dreams.

However, I do not think that college athletes should be paid. College sports is not just about revenue. It is about giving students a chance to be built personally, educating them and helping them become professionals. Government-mandated paying college athletes could be another step towards eroding the core values of college athletics—education and the notion of athletics are integral to the student experience more than a career—regrettably tarnishing the purity of both. While introducing salaries could manifest in imbalance, where universities cannot choose between athletic success and academic achievements, the primary purpose of higher education will be sacrificed. Additionally, it could result in the more prominent schools having financial leverage over smaller institutions that cannot pay their athletes, aggravating the gap between big and small colleges. Given that athletes currently receive so much money in tuition, room, and board, under the current scholarship model, they no longer need to be paid.

Considering these points, I think that the readers should think about the long-run effects of paying athletes on the integrity of college sports. The athletes would thus be supported by scholarships and other resources such as career counseling, mental health services, and life skills training to succeed without jeopardizing the educational mission of universities. The maintenance of college sports is entirely feasible, so long as they continue to be an extension of the educational experience, as opposed to a professional industry where athletes are paid beyond the benefits of their existence. This is a model that honors athletics and the academic objectives of the university. I would advise the author of this article and those supporting paying college athletes to consider the long-term effects of such a shift. If the system is broken, it’s not by much, and it’s a fair compromise for athletes to gain a great deal of support while still maintaining the educational integrity of college sports. Introducing salaries could do more harm than good and may ultimately damage the system on which college athletics are built upon.