The debate over whether college athletes should be paid has been going on for many years and will probably continue for many, many more; even if the rule changes. This argument comes from the fans, sports commentators, sports analysts, professional athletes, coaches, the athlete’s parents, and the athletes themselves arguing that colleges and universities make money off of the players and the players receive nothing. As a student-athlete here at Savannah State University, my opinion might be influenced because of my personal circumstances. Being a college athlete is very competitive and there are only a limited number of available scholarships to go around. A full ride scholarship would pay for the athlete’s college tuition, on-campus housing, books and food. At best, college athletes can hope for partial scholarships to help reduce the education expenses they have to pay. Almost every college athlete was a star athlete in high school and getting a spot on any team is very hard to do and getting a scholarship is extremely hard to do. College athletes are supposed to be the best of the best; therefore, they spend many hours in the weight room trying to stay in shape to earn one of the limited scholarships or one of the few available spots on the team. Many people say that receiving a scholarship is enough of a financial incentive, but there are not enough athletic scholarships to support all members of the teams. In fact, some sports have a lot more money to spend than others. Football definitely offers more scholarships than baseball, but football games also generate more money for the school. The promise of an education is important and if an athlete is lucky enough to be awarded a scholarship, it does not cover all of the college expenses. This results in athletes obtaining student loans to stay in school to get an education and participate in sports. An athlete must go to school for at least one year before he or she can dec