First of all, I would argue that the terms of this debate are very broad. So to narrow down the debate term, I'm going to define, like the athlete is a college athlete who has been funded by, already has an incentive and is going to play for the big leagues, maybe, for example, the Olympics or the NBA, you know what I mean. So now I'm also talking about the context in India, because that's where I belong from. Now the second thing I would argue is, first of all, athletics is something which requires you to have more energy or something which requires you to have more flexibility in the sense that you should be able to move around your body in a well way, in a well-versed way, and I think it is a general consensus that the time when the human body actually deteriorates or gets to the peak of its, you know, the peak of the body or the youth peak, is around the mid-20s or like the late 20s. I'm expecting, for example, in cricket as well, you have seen Virat Kohli is turning 30 now. Now do you expect this guy to be as well as he was playing in his 20s? No, of course you cannot, because the energy levels are not the same. The way this guy... because we're getting old, and it's human biology. The older you get, yes, you may have more experience, but does experience really beat new talents, or does experience really beat the new amounts of energy or the amounts of flexibility you have? No, it doesn't. So now, third of all, I would also argue that athletics is something which is very undermined in a country like India. Yes, cricket is sometimes overglorified, but I think which is wrong, because other sports are undermined in a sense. For example, I would like to point out the example of javelin thrower Neeraj Chopra. He wasn't even given equipment, and in India these athletes are not given the right resources where they can even, you know, like get into, like, you know, they can even get good equipment to perform well. So they should be paid in a sense that there is regulation that they will use the money paid in a sense where they can improve their performance. That is what I would like to point out, that they should be paid only so that they can enhance their performance, as well as I would also argue that college athletes should be paid, because athletics is considered as something which is a career which dies early off. So to sustain, because let's say you're an Olympian and you are not getting enoughly paid after you have won the Olympics. There are certain examples of people who are not paid, essentially in the sense that, for example, there's an Olympian I heard in the news that after she won, even though she was an Olympian, she was working as a carpenter, or she was working in a very lowly paid job. Now that's a very... that's like a gem of India, gem of a person who is being undermined by the system, while the system is being raised. So a property, like a monetary incentive should be provided to these people, because they are an asset, and an asset deserves some value, because they have done great enormous achievements for the country. So, and these college athletes are basically the future of the country, which are going to be, you know, going to be the face of the country. So I would also argue that having these people in the face of the country, you know, that gives you a personal motivation as well. For example, let's say that they're getting paid now, there is a personal motivation for them to even win more, because they know that if they're going to win the Olympics, they're going to get more paid. That creates... that's a little selfish, but does that create a positive result? Yes, it does.

[No submission - Time expired]