For quite some time, there has been an extensive debate over payment of athletes, with each party in the debate presenting valid opinions that cannot be overlooked. It is essential to consider both the pros and cons of paying the athletes in order to come up with an objective decision. It is no secret that athletes earn their relative institutions high amounts of revenue. College athletes generate millions of dollars for their colleges and are required to be content with scholarships they enjoy (Griffin 19). This beats the principle of equity, and the athletes are, therefore, entitled to the revenue they generated.
Athletes are exposed to risks that pertain to health, arising from the setting and nature of games and sports they take part in. These athletes, all around the young age of 22 or so, end their college careers with injured bodies, muscles that have repeatedly been shot up with cortisone injections, conditions such as prediabetes and prehypertension, and - in the case of the linemen - waistlines of 45 to 50 inches. The average career for a NFL player is only a few years, depending on the position. Early injuries in the transition from college to professional are a substantial reason, given that they have often compromised their bodies and health just to reach the NFL in the first place. This presents a case to pay college athletes to compensate them for the risks they face and also so that they can be able to access best medical care as well as have a balanced diet (Griffin 43).
To be successful in any athletic competition, considerable investment of time and effort is paramount. This forces athletes to sacrifice their time in college and ensure that they adequately train in order to enhance their talent and give them a competitive edge. They do so while ensuring that they do not neglect their academic work, at times creating study time tables so as to be at par with their classmates, which creates an extra strenuous