Paying college athletes is a very hot topic today. Some experts believe in salary payments and others believe that scholarships are plenty. Paying them has many advantages and disadvantages. I personally believe that they shouldn’t be paid salaries. The debate over whether or not college athletes should be paid has been debated for a long time. “In 1957 to cool down the debate, the NCAA voted to allow athletic scholarships” (Sack). This action by the NCAA helped tame the debate by allowing colleges to pay their athletes, but not directly. The way the founding fathers of the NCAA founded it remains the best fit for the academic mission of higher education (Sack). When the NCAA first started, they focused on education but gradually over time athletes stopped caring about education and only focused on their sport. After the NCAA gave the opportunity to award scholarships, they realized they needed to make an adjustment; “In 1973 four year scholarships were relegated” (Sack). This rule allowed colleges to pay athletes year-to-year in case of injuries, drugs and other various things. After many student revolts, “In 1957, the association adopted rules that allowed the immediate termination of scholarship aid to athletes who challenge the authority of a coach or withdraw from sports” (Sack). This rule prevented colleges from losing money on athletes who decide to quit their sport while on a scholarship. From that point in time the NCAA stands as it is today, but one issue still remains: “Should college athletes be paid?” When thinking about paying athletes one immediately thinks of the disadvantages, but believe it or not many advantages stand to paying athletes. Student athletes who take part in these programs are the main reason why schools make huge profits (Meshefejian). Not one penny goes towards those who make all these profits possible, how does that hold fair? Another reason is “the average amount of funding in an