Throughout the history of college athletics, there has been a debate over whether or not college athletes should be paid. Some say that college athletes should be paid because they generate so much revenue. Others believe that they shouldn’t be paid because they are student-athletes, student being first. College athletes are not professionals, nor employees (Cooper 12-13). “The amateur model embraced by the founding fathers of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in 1905 remains the best fit for the academic mission of higher education” (Sack 9). In other words, the NCAA believes that college athletics should remain at the amateur level in order to keep academics as the main priority. Also, most college athletes at more competitive levels are awarded financial scholarships, where their tuition and expenses are paid for. This leads some to question if these student-athletes are truly amateurs. Although college athletes are currently not being paid by the NCAA or the schools they attend, there is immense controversy surrounding this dilemma that may influence change or consistency in the future. The controversy and an extended debate on whether or not college athletes should be paid has been an on-going topic among sport fanatics since the early 1900’s (Olterddorf 28). The main argument for officials, who believe college athletes should be compensated, is that college athletes are employees under federal labor laws (Cooper 12-13). College athletes have been encouraged and told by some that they are entitled to start unions and should negotiate salaries, specifics, and working conditions. The NCAA, as well as the courts, have addressed this issue and believe that student-athletes should not legally be considered employees. They also made it clear that they should not be treated as employees by the schools they attend, because they are students and not professionals (Cooper 12-13). Many skeptics believe if college pl