Opposing View on Student-Athletes being Paid

My research topic ventures deep in the economics of college athletics and in particular if student-athletes should be paid for their services to there respected university.  As I researched I considered both sides of the argument but ended up believing that it would not be smart for universities to pay their players.  Although I firmly agree with this statement many believe that the players should be paid.  Their side of the argument is mainly because of the player’s perspectives on the subject.  Most players are in favor of the purposed rule change because it provides them with extra money to help out for the normal college expenses not paid by scholarship.  The debate from their side is mainly because being a student-athlete in this day and age is very similar to a full time job where they go to school and when they are not in school they are practicing or improving their ability on their respected fields and courts.  This point is very well noted because they do not have any time to make money outside of sports and there are many who do not come from wealthy and suitable backgrounds that can support the extra expenses needed to get through college.  They argue, coming from these backgrounds makes it very hard on families to economically help the athlete because of issues with a lack of money at home.  Also, many are in favor of paying players because of the overwhelming amounts of money that are pouring into colleges and universities due to the great play of these athletes not the school providing the services.  There are millions and millions of dollars in revenue just because of some of the players great seasons and outstanding performances and the players think it is fair to give them what they had earned by their play.