Tony Lopez says that scholarship is enough salary for student's athlete in the article "Paying College Athletes: Point/. Counterpoint". .
For some student the only way to college is through sports, because they come from low-income families. Thus, scholarship is a unique opportunity for some young people. I come from Poland, where family income is much lower than in the United States. Although I would consider my parents quite wealthy in my country, they do not earn enough money to pay for my college in the United States. Thus scholarships is the perfect solution in this situation because give me an opportunity to continue my studying as well as practice track. Furthermore, I get the chance to study abroad, learn the language, and experience a different culture. Therefore, the athletic scholarships are a big chance for many people, like myself.
Furthermore, some coaches argue that student athletes are in a better situation than other students, because they "travel first-class, they eat as much as they want and they get a free education and privileges" (AP). Therefore, they do not need extra money for their own spending the scholarship is enough compensation for their talents. In addition, if players were paid, it would violate the NCAA's extra-benefits rule. Proponents of salaries, on the other hand, say that many of these athletes come from low-income families, and their talent benefits their schools as much as it benefits the athletes. Thus, the NCAA should pay participating students for their involvement into academic sports. Moreover, student athletics gain many profits from their talents already; USC's full scholarship includes tuition, free books, and free health care. USC athletic scholarships also cover monthly living expenses. Beside that, athletes have a computer lab, only for their use, as well as access to free tutors to help them with school. Thus, I think that extra paying will be unfair to the rest good student but non-athletes so should remain the same.
