Picture this: a women's field hockey player works just as hard as the quarterback, but if we start paying athletes, where does the money go? The football star gets millions while she gets nothing. That's not fair either. I get the appeal of paying college athletes. They bring in huge revenue, and their time is consumed by practice and games. But here's the thing: they're already compensated with scholarships worth tens of thousands of dollars, elite coaching, and lifelong connections. Paying them turns education into a transaction and gut the very idea of amateurism. From an ethics standpoint, paying only revenue-sport athletes violates fairness. And from a deontological view, the promise of "student-athlete" becomes a lie. The current system isn't perfect, but opening the cash spigot creates more problems than it solves. Let's fix academic support and health care instead of making college a minor league.

Is the answer to every unfair system just throwing money at it? I hear you on financial strain, and it's real. But paying athletes doesn't fix the root problem. That 33 percent who quit are struggling with living expenses, not with wanting a salary. The ethical fix is better stipends and full cost-of-attendance coverage, not turning them into employees. And look at the intern comparison differently. Interns get paid for professional work in their chosen field. College athletes are students pursuing an education, and the scholarship already covers that. Once we start paying, the quarterback gets rich while the field hockey player gets nothing, and suddenly the "student" part of student-athlete disappears. From a utilitarian lens, paying athletes helps a few stars but hurts the majority. From a virtue ethics view, it corrupts the mission of higher education. We can close the financial gap with stipends and stronger support without wrecking amateurism. That's the right path.

[No submission - Time expired]