The strongest argument is simple: if an organization makes huge amounts of money from someone's labor, it is unfair to tell that person they cannot receive a share of the money they helped generate. College sports are no longer just an extracurricular activity. At the highest levels, especially Division I football and basketball, they are massive commercial enterprises. Universities make money from television contracts, ticket sales, sponsorships, merchandise, advertising, licensing, and donations, and the athletes are the people actually performing the games that attract those audiences. The NCAA itself acknowledges that colleges use sports to generate revenue, attract attention, increase enrollment, and raise money from alumni. The Supreme Court made this point in NCAA v. Alston (2021), noting that colleges had leveraged sports for revenue and attention while NCAA rules restricted how athletes could be compensated. And this isn't just theoretical anymore. In 2025, the federal court approved the House settlement, which includes approximately $2.78 billion in back damages for college athletes and allows participating Division I schools to provide athletes with additional financial benefits. Beginning in the 2025–26 academic year, schools can provide benefits equal to up to 22% of certain average Autonomy 5 athletic revenue, initially around $20.5 million per school. That is incredibly important for the debate because it demonstrates something: the system itself has already moved toward paying athletes. The question is no longer whether money should ever go to college athletes. It already does. The question is whether athletes should receive a fair and structured share of the economic value their participation creates. Think about it this way: If a university sells 60,000 tickets to a football game because people want to watch its athletes compete, the university is receiving economic value from that performance. If a television network pays millions of dollars for broadcasting rights because people want to watch those athletes, the athletes are contributing to the product being sold. If a player's jersey generates merchandise sales, their name and performance have commercial value. The opposing side might say, "But athletes already get scholarships." Your response should be: "A scholarship is compensation for education; it doesn't automatically mean an athlete shouldn't also receive a share of the economic value created by their athletic work." A student getting a scholarship doesn't make the revenue generated by their athletic performance disappear. A college athlete can be simultaneously receiving an education and contributing enormous economic value through athletics. And importantly, paying athletes doesn't necessarily mean giving every athlete millions of dollars. A fair system could distribute money through revenue-sharing, guaranteed benefits, or other standardized compensation. The key point: If college sports are generating billions in economic activity, it is difficult to justify a system where everyone around the athletes can financially benefit from their performances while the athletes themselves are heavily restricted from receiving that value

The second argument is about labor and time. The opposing side will probably portray college athletes as ordinary students who happen to play sports. But high-level college athletics can demand an extraordinary amount of time and commitment. Athletes have practices, games, strength training, conditioning, film study, meetings, travel, rehabilitation, academic responsibilities, and other team obligations. This matters because college athletes aren't simply showing up for a recreational game once or twice a week. For athletes competing at the highest levels, athletics can become a major part of their daily schedule. And unlike most college students, athletes are also putting their bodies and future careers on the line. An injury can potentially affect an athlete's ability to compete, their professional opportunities, and their future income. That creates an important fairness issue. Imagine two students at the same university. One spends their free time studying, working a part-time job, and participating in clubs. The other attends classes but also spends substantial amounts of time practicing, traveling, training, competing, recovering, and representing the university in front of thousands or millions of viewers. The second student is contributing something commercially valuable to the university that the first student isn't. Yet historically, the NCAA's system placed strict restrictions on what that athlete could receive. This is one reason NCAA v. Alston is such a powerful case for your side. In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld a ruling against NCAA restrictions on certain education-related benefits. The Court recognized that NCAA compensation restrictions could affect interstate commerce and that NCAA rules restricting compensation could be subject to antitrust scrutiny. You can make the argument even broader: If athletes are expected to dedicate a huge amount of their time to an activity that produces revenue for their university, why shouldn't they be compensated for that contribution? And there's another important consideration: financial security. A scholarship can cover tuition, room and board, but athletes can still have ordinary expenses. They may need transportation, clothing, food outside provided meals, school supplies, personal expenses, and other costs. More importantly, not every athlete has the same financial circumstances. A player shouldn't have to choose between representing their university at a high level and having enough financial flexibility to live normally. The other side might say: "They chose to play." Your answer: "Choosing to do something doesn't mean your labor has no economic value." Millions of people choose jobs. That doesn't mean their employers get to say, "You chose to work here, so we're not paying you." And you can make an even stronger distinction: Athletes don't need to be forced into professional sports simply because they are compensated. We already compensate people in many situations without turning what they do into a traditional professional career. The fact that athletes receive money doesn't erase the educational component of college.

"College sports are already about money. Paying athletes doesn't introduce money into college sports — it makes the money already there more transparent and allows athletes to participate in it." For decades, there was an enormous contradiction in college athletics. Universities and conferences could sign massive television contracts, sell tickets, negotiate sponsorships, sell merchandise, and build billion-dollar sports industries, while athletes faced restrictions on receiving compensation related to their athletic value. That system has increasingly been challenged. The House settlement, approved in June 2025, represents a major change: it provides approximately $2.78 billion in back damages and establishes a system under which Division I schools can provide substantial additional financial benefits to athletes. That means the argument that "paying college athletes would destroy the existing system" is becoming increasingly difficult to defend because college athletics is already transitioning toward athlete compensation. And there is a fairness argument within the athlete population itself. Not every athlete generates the same amount of revenue. A star football quarterback at a major Division I program might attract enormous television audiences and merchandise sales. A swimmer or tennis player might contribute much less direct revenue. So you don't necessarily need to argue that every athlete should receive exactly the same amount of money. Instead, argue for a fair and transparent system. For example, compensation could account for things like: The revenue generated by a sport The school's athletic revenue Scholarships and educational benefits NIL opportunities Team-specific revenue-sharing structures Medical and long-term athlete benefits The important thing is that athletes shouldn't have to depend entirely on unofficial arrangements or outside opportunities to benefit from their own economic value. There's also a legal precedent showing why this change was coming. In NCAA v. Alston, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the NCAA's attempt to preserve certain restrictions on education-related compensation. The decision didn't simply say "pay every athlete a salary," but it established that the NCAA isn't automatically exempt from normal antitrust scrutiny just because it calls its athletes amateurs. That destroys a major philosophical argument the NCAA had relied on: Calling someone an "amateur" doesn't automatically determine whether restrictions on their compensation are fair or legal. And this leads to your biggest point: Paying athletes can actually make college sports MORE fair. Instead of pretending athletes aren't part of a massive commercial industry, establish clear rules about how money is distributed. Instead of pretending money doesn't influence recruiting, acknowledge that it does and regulate it. Instead of forcing athletes to rely on complicated loopholes and outside opportunities, create transparent systems. Instead of having universities receive the majority of the financial benefits while athletes have limited control over their economic value, allow athletes to share in the revenue.