A college athlete attends a top-notch university to play the sport that he so desires on a full scholarship. The only reason that this student is enrolled in this university is to play this sport and that may well be the only reason that this student got into this school. NCAA (National Collegiate American Association), law states that, " Any payment, including actual and necessary expenses, conditioned on the individual's or team's place finish or performance or given on an incentive basis, or receipt of expenses in excess of the same reasonable amount for permissible expenses given to all individuals or team members involved in the competition" (NCAA). Even though the athlete knows this he still believes that he should get paid for the accomplishments and the revenue that he brings in for the university. The university is following NCAA laws and feels that he does not deserve any extra money because they have already given him a full scholarship. To the university paying this athlete will bring down the integrity of the collegiate game. The NCAA stands firm with their rules but this has still brought about a lot of controversy and brings about one major question. Should the NCAA change its rules and allow collegiate athletes to get paid for what they accomplish for their respective universities and colleges? This question raises some pretty good issues and upon research, it is in my opinion that athletes should get paid. Some people believe that athletes do deserve a little extra cash because of the revenue that they not only bring in for their schools but also for the NCAA. The people opposed to the payment of athletes feel that no matter the amount of money they bring in, they should be playing for the love of the game, not money. This is where the athlete's view and the NCAA's view differ. .
There are accusations that the NCAA is just out to benefit from the athletes but the NCAA says that these accusations are utterly ridiculous because they just want the best for the "student-athlete.