Imagine dedicating 20 hours a week to playing a sport in college while having to balance your schedule with your schoolwork for no financial gain. In high school, I played three sports and often struggled to excel in both academics and sports. I couldn’t imagine the stress of having to juggle the rigorous demands of academics and sports simultaneously. With these preconceived thoughts, I questioned the ethical aspect of the NCAA's decision to not pay student-athletes and the negative effects of this decision. There has been much debate over whether or not college athletes should be paid, especially Division I athletes. Although they receive free tuition, room, board and travel, people don't take into account the millions of dollars universities make from athlete advertising. Without adequate compensation, athletes face long-term exploitation and economic hardship. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Many people, including Dalton Thacker, advocate for paying athletes because of their intense workloads. Despite training and practicing 20 or more hours per week, the NCAA classifies them in a group under the label “amateurism,” which prevents them from having the opportunity to get paid. At first, remuneration was foreign to amateur athletics when the concept of amateurism was created in 1906. This was appropriate because, among other reasons, athletics consumed little of athletes' time, unlike today where college athletes must train year-round. However, now that billions of dollars are poured into amateur athletics, it is worth considering a more fundamental American tradition: He who creates value should share that value proportionately. Some athletes in certain sports generate significant revenue for their college or university, and it is appropriate to examine potential models that would allow these athletes to reap the benefits of the substantial value they create. The NCAA has mandated that athletes not be allowed to be paid for the revenue they bring into the industry. They do this not only because they are afraid of the amount they might have to pay players, but also because they fear that monetary compensation will have negative effects on the NCAA and its players. This is an issue that needs to be addressed immediately, as it is only fair to reward these athletes for their hard work by providing them with a portion of the money they earn through their hard work and dedication . Dalton Thacker, the current NCAA compensation structure is grossly inadequate and leads to the exploitation of more than 460,000 athletes participating in college sports. The NCAA produces a massive industry that was created thanks to hard-working young athletes. Many people argue that these athletes are only worth what they receive in scholarships. Opponents of compensation believe that these athletes do not need to be compensated because they are already taken care of by other measures. In fact, many people tend to believe that a full athletic scholarship to a Division I university means these kids are going to school for free and that paying them would essentially be providing them with discretionary income. In Dennis Johnson's article "Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes," he explains that "the current full scholarship cannot.