Any fan of collegiate sports has a side on the famous should college athletes be paid debate. Any fan who understands the outcomes knows that paying student-athletes is ridiculous, when they already receive so many benefits.Saying you got nothing if you're getting free education at an out-of-state tuition, while playing the game you love can only be described as asinine and selfish. In today's society, professional athletes are held at the top and are paid millions to play a game. A student-athlete is someone who plays a game while in school. They are held highly in today's society too, but instead of millions, they get a free education, along with free services others pay thousands to receive. These students get free what other students break the bank for, all to play a game. That is a pretty good deal, right? Professional athletes are grown men who have dedicated their lives to be there. Some of these student-athletes might be there one day, but not yet, so they don't receive the same benefits as professionals, when they haven't earn them. These are young, immatute kids between 18-22 living a life once reserved for loyalty, Rocker (2013) Do we hold contract negotiations with an 18 year old? Chen (2013) believes that would be ridiculous. Do we pay kids multi-million dollar checks? Being a student-athlete already has its benefits that hold them over regular students. According to Dorfman (2013) Student-athletes revive free tuition, room, meal plan, money for books/miscellaneous expenses... academic counseling tutoring, life skills, training, nutritional advice, professional coaching, strength/fitness training, and support from physical therapists. Technically, according to Burton (2013) this is already considered pay. It is compensation in return for an action. This is hundreds of dollars of services given for free. As in all debates, there is always another side. A large argument for athletes in college being paid is th