Whether or not collegiate athletes should be paid has been a hot topic over the last few months. The NCAA has been making billions of dollars off of their athletes for years, and the athletes do not receive any money. The NCAA would not produce nearly the amount of money they do now without the collegiate athletes, who are advertised in a high percentage of all commercials boosting the revenue and breaking sales records in gear each year.

The opposition argues that the athletes actually receive money when given scholarships, but in turn, the athletic scholarships received are from federal taxes, which the government pays the universities. Then the university benefits from that player.

In addition, EA Sports has had lawsuits filed against them numerous times because they modeled games after collegiate players, but did not put names, which in turn made that whole process legal. So not only is the NCAA making money off players, but EA Sports, another company, is also bringing in a huge profit.

Therefore, collegiate athletes should be compensated for their talents that generate revenue for colleges and universities. Without these “cash cows” the  NCAA would not have such high notoriety. More so, the NCAA would be forced to seek alternative means for asset generation.

Overall, collegiate players are worth 6.2 billion dollars, and that is only about fifty percent of all income the NCAA makes off athletes. Former athletes are pushing for modified laws on collegiate athletes receiving money. The NCAA has budged a small amount by adding 2,000-3,000 dollars more on athletic scholarships per school year; although it is a win for the collegiate players, the rivalry battle of NCAA versus collegiate players will continue.