Rebecca Zissou’s article “Should College Athletes Be Paid,” asserts that college athletes bring in millions of dollars and work over forty hours a week just on their sport. For this hard work they should receive a cut in order to pay the bills that are not covered under scholarship. To oppose this Eder, Majerol, and Tracy sport editors for “New York Times,” asserts players shouldn’t receive any money to play. College athletes receive pay already in different forms such as, scholarships, elite coaching, counseling, and training facilities. College athletes are already compensated for their work and nothing else should be given to them. The main opposition between these two articles is determining if college athletes should be compensated for their …show more content…
In her article she debates both sides telling the viewers the facts instead of her opinion. In an interview with Rick Burton, a sports manger professor at Syracuse University, he says “Many top players receive tuition, books, tutoring, housing, meals, clothing, elite coaching, medical care, travel expenses, and career counseling. At some schools, the value of those benefits during four years of college might exceed $250,000. Others say that most colleges simply don't have the money to pay student athletes.”(Zissou) Rick Burton lists the facts very well on why college athletes should not be paid because most colleges can’t afford the cost. Also many people believe that it would not be fair to cut other sports just to compensate for the other sports programs that bring in more revenue. The college athletes participating in those sports would lose scholarships and lose the opportunity to succeed. College athletes are there to receive an education not to make money out of their