Two Sided Essay: Should College Athletes be Paid or not If the great Kansas basketball coach, Bill Self, can completely change his whole prospective on the idea of college athletes being paid, we all can! Self once stated that “[college athletics has] always [been] big business; now it's huge business. And when you're sending players from the West Coast to East Coast to play sports, to miss more classes, and the schools benefit from that financially, why shouldn't the people that are responsible for the business, and that would be the student athletes," (Kansas). At most colleges, college athletes are a key source of income, and they attract students to their institutions. Universities depend on their athletes to produce and maintain the popularity of their school's name. College athletes are supposed to be the best of the best on that level, so why do college athletes not get paid? The National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, says that it is trying to protect the athletes from "exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises" (United). Many argue that student athletes should not be paid because they are receiving an essentially free education through a scholarship. These people feel that the promise of their education being paid for is enough for the college athletes. They reason that with free tuition, room, board, books, and fees, there are no other factorable costs that could significantly harm ones packets. However, on the opposite side of the issue, some argue that the college athlete generates enough income for the universities, and they feel that the university owes the athletes more than a scholarship. In my opinion, student athletes should be given a small salary for their services to the university. College athletes are looked upon as amateur players, and the NCAA wants to protect its’ athletes from being influenced by money much like