The NCAA has faced backlash for years over the controversy of paying college athletes. Allowing them to be compensated would turn college sports into more of a business, and make recruitment all about the money. Out of the thousands of colleges in the country, there are only about 20 college athletic programs that run in the black. Those 20 colleges are the top Division I schools out of about 350. So what happens to the thousands of other student athletes across all divisions? If this is the case, why would it make sense to pay college athletes when programs clearly aren’t even making money?

At first it may seem reasonable to pay student athletes, but you have to look at the big picture. Even as an athlete myself, I’ve learned how much it could hurt college athletes to pay them. If the NCAA paid college athletes, there would be difficulty finding a fair way to pay. Some student athletes might lose scholarships, and some colleges might make cuts to less high-profile sports.

Others may argue that playing a college sport is like having a full-time job. Athletes spend around 35 hours a week on their sports and still have to manage school. Being a college athlete is a difficult thing to do, mentally and physically. In a survey of over 2,000 students on College Pulse, 53 percent agreed that they should get paid, and 71 percent of athletes also agreed. It makes you wonder why that number is not 100. People need to recognize that being an athlete is not their job, being a student is. Colleges make it clear that academics come first. An athlete has to maintain certain grades and attendance to be a part of the team. After all, the reason they go to college is to continue learning. All athletes have been told being a student comes first, and it’s important to remember this before making a decision.

Determining appropriate player salaries would be difficult, given the struggle women and less highprofile sports face for recognition. Similar to professional sports, many think players should be paid based on their image and likeness. In a survey on College Pulse, 77 percent of all students said they favor that policy, 81 percent of them being athletes. But there are still thousands of female athletes who put the same amount of work into their sport and receive a smaller pay. In this survey, more women supported paying all athletes than men. Doesn’t that say something? Women understand what it’s like to play sports and not get the recognition they deserve. Men are more likely to get recognition and therefore make more money. We cannot pay college athletes fairly until we remove the gender pay gap. We would simply be introducing that pay gap to a new group of workers.

Getting a scholarship is like getting paid, and many athletes receive scholarships for their athletic or academic achievements. If student-athletes are already getting scholarships to help pay for school, do they need to receive extra pay? The NCAA provides more than $3.6 billion in athletic scholarships to Division l and ll schools and to more than 180,000 students. The NCAA also has several financial aid programs that athletes can use. For the NCAA to just pay their D1 athletes, it could cost around $50.6 million, and there would most likely still be complaints about certain athletes not making enough money. People also have to remember that D3 schools don’t even have enough money to give out athletic scholarships, let alone pay their athletes. For this to work, athletes would also have to be considered as employees — so would they still be eligible for athletic scholarships? Paying athletes would create a lot of problems and potentially take away scholarships. Is it really worth it?

If the NCAA were to pay their student athletes, many players and programs would suffer. Some may argue that only Division l players should get paid because they are in a bigger, higher revenue-generating, and harder division. But athletes at any division have put their blood, sweat, and tears into playing sports in college. So why should they not be allowed to be compensated for their hard work? Ohio State Athletic Director Gene Smith said that if he had to pay athletes, he would expect to lose some sports in the process. Ohio State is a Division l school with outstanding athletics, and they produce athletes that have the opportunity to go pro. Smith isn’t the only one who has this concern. Rebecca Blank, chancellor at the University of Wisconsin, also said she would have to consider cutting sports. So if schools like these would have to make cuts, what about other schools that aren’t as big and popular as Ohio State or Wisconsin?

It is essential that we recognize paying student athletes will cause harm to college athletic programs across the country. Too many problems would arise, and there is no fair way to do it. All athletes put their hard work and time into their sport, and there is no reason they shouldn’t be treated equally. The best solution is not to pay college athletes.

In a world where college athletes get paid, college athletics would become a business and a college education would not be the priority. College athletes should be playing their sport for the love of the game and not to get paid. The recruiting process would completely shift to committing to the school who pays the most, and not about the right fit. This would create an unfair advantage and lead to the same schools winning big championships every year. No one wants to watch the same team win year after year. There is more excitement in big upsets and the suspension of not knowing who will win. Overall, paying college athletes would change the dynamic of college sports and ruin the fun of it for athletes and fans.