Athletes are treated better than the normal student and still want the university to pay them more. With this being said, this is why student athletes do not deserve to be paid for playing.
Moreover, college athletes should not be paid is because it would put more of a financial burden on colleges and universities Most college programs do not make any money off of sports. If you start to pay the big sports, such as football players, then you would have to pay every single athlete; which could result in cutting the non-revenue sports such as lacrosse, swimming, and tennis. Thus, the schools would not have it in the budget to offer wages to athletes. Although college sports are a big part of society and attraction the money made from the sport does not cover the expense of running the program. The schools are already putting so much money into the athletes through education and material goods that paying them a wage is absurd. Jim Delany, Big Ten commissioner, has begun this conversation considering a stipend of about $2,000-$5,000. We would be talking about $300,000 a year extra that universities would have to spit out as a result of this stipend. Some colleges would have to reach into non-existent funds to generate this money. ESPN analyst Lou Holtz points out that he sees college athletes with iPods, iPhones, and expensive shoes and concludes that they look like they are not lacking much (Dudley). The average student athlete is better off financially than the average college student. As a result, the motive as to why student athletes should not be paid is because universities do not have it in the budget.
One other motive why athletes should not be paid is because if they accepted compensation then the whole program would crumble. "Schools accept the responsibility of the student's tuition, meal plan, and boarding, while the athlete is provided with the opportunity to earn a degree, engage in college life and play their favorite sport in a well-organized, and often high profile fashion" (Johnson).