NCAA student athletes ought to be recognized as employees under the fair labor standards act.

My first contention explicitly states that forcing the NCAA and its colleges to pay the student athletes would be too costly and result in a monopoly of talent. As I said, only 7 athletics programs at NCAA universities broke even .Not even men"s basketball at places like Duke University that have such an incredible team broke even. And since student athletes work more than average worker (a fact you agree with), they would have to be paid overtime as well. There 200 something NCAA schools, and only 7 break even or make money. That means over 90% of the colleges would not be able to afford minimum wage, let alone overtime. In my 1st contention, I also mentioned that humans are more inclined to make decisions based on money over anything else. Thus colleges with more money ate the one that students will be attending. All the best athletes will be going to a certain group of schools leaving little else for other colleges. "They are doing more work than a typical full time job that is 35-40 hours, and are getting no money for all the work they put in. This is wrong. Morally wrong. I understand the financial limits of these universities, but then again, you get paid for how well you do. So cost wouldn't be too much of a problem"" As I already addressed, the payment is not possible regardless of how well the athletes do. Also, we should be looking at this from a logical point of view. If paying these athletes is impossible, then we should not send colleges into debt. "In your case you mention how money is the most versatile form of power. How we make decisions inclined to make money. Yet I don't see how this is a negative. If you are striving for a goal, and suddenly that goal has more value. Would you not try harder? Would you not put in even more work? This would allow these schools to do better because their students are putting in more effort and the schools in turn would make more money." What I was saying was that people make decisions based off money. "Then you said that athletes are already getting monthly stipends and free tuition. I would like to say that this is not enough. If an athlete is injured and cannot play. He loses his scholarship. And then where is he?" One of the benefits I mentioned was Medical care. If an athlete is injured, the school will take care of their injury. Losing their scholarships is bad but paying them isn"t going to solve this problem. I already talked about how universities are unable to pay for wages. If athletes now had to rely on wages, they would be worse off because one, they would be getting ridiculously low wages and two, if they became employees, they would lose all the benefits I mention in the 2nd round. Who would pay for their medical care? Not the school. They would not have any money or benefits to fall back on. "You keep stating that these students receive support and extremely expensive things, yet if they either get kicked out of the team, flunk, or get injured. They are left totally on their own with nothing to fall back on." I already addressed getting injured. But regarding getting kicked out of the team or flunking, that is completely on them and no one else. If I am a cashier and I get fired, no one will argue for me that now I have no salary and have nothing to fall back on in case I get injured. That"s my own fault.