College football players should receive a form of payment for what they do.

Thanks, Pro, for responding. In response to my first point that football players make the choice to play football, Pro contends that many "don't have any other choice" and suggests that their only alternative is to not attend college at all. That is simply not true. Because my parents make too much money, I never qualified for a cent of financial aid or received any help from the government. My parents were also hesitant to co-sign my college loan. As such, I was forced to take out student loans with particularly high interest rates. Like most other students in America, I had to pay for college and not expect a free ride. It's simply untrue a football player has "no other options." If their parents won't or can't help, the government will. The worst case scenario is that they take out a loan. Boo hoo. Pro continues, "Football players do not see any of the thousands of dollars that they are compensated for. A week in the life of a college football player is more time demanding and also physically demanding." In the last round I already explained exactly what that money goes into (tuition, room and board, dining plan, facilities, equipment, staff salary, etc. etc. etc.) so it doesn't matter that the football players don't "see" the money. It's still there and being utilized. Regarding the number of work hours I've already explained that no sympathy can be had for those who willingly choose to participate in this demanding hobby. Pro brings up the fact that football generates revenue that helps pay for the things I've mentioned; however, that does not negate my point that football players are compensated in the form of receiving those certain benefits for free. For instance, suppose colleges received money to broadcast their games and used that money to help build a football stadium. Now suppose player X enters the university as a freshman and gets to utilize those facilities for free. Technically the college can charge that player for using those facilities. The player did nothing to help earn money for the stadium. In fact there are A LOT of things the college could charge the player for. If they wanted to, colleges could charge players to be on their team. I know many players would choose to pay to play for a college team just for the necessary experience and exposure if they plan to go onto the NFL. However, instead the student agrees to sign a contract with the university to provide for certain exchanges. The player gets free tuition, free rent, free food and a plethora of football opportunities and other services free of charge. As I explained, that is their compensation. The value of playing for the team alone (in terms of potential wealth) is incredibly great. Also, Pro is overcompensating for the amount of revenue a football an average college team generates. For instance, he notes "College football bowl games bring in over a billion dollars in profit alone." I'll go back to using my school as an example. In the last round I mentioned Rutgers University's new 100+ million dollar football stadium. Meanwhile, Rutgers did not attend a bowl game last year. It's a D-1 football school but did not receive anywhere near the amount of funding Pro is alluding to. Pro's next points are as follows: "The biggest issue is if the state has the burden of paying the football players tuition, what does the NCAA pay for? Or why do college football coaches made over 5 million dollars a year." First, who said the State pays for player's tuition? I'm actually not sure who does, so if Pro can provide evidence that the State pays for university athletes tuition then that would be significantly helpful for my final rebuttal. Second, Pro is once again making a mass generalization about a coach's salary. Only the very best coaches in the country make it to the million dollar mark [1]. Finally, Pro's closing argument is that one who chooses to go to a school with a football program risks a tuition increase, or any other increase necessary to help the football players out. He also pointed out that many times sponsors and the like pay for travel and other necessary equipment, meaning it doesn't cost the university money so there should be left-over money to pay players. However as I've been pointing out, not every college team is a D-1 team with sponsors. This is also a hypocritical argument. On one hand he thinks students should expect a possibility in tuition prices for football; on the other he's ignoring the fact that footall players fully know what to expect when they sign the contract to play football for that school. If it's personal responsibility he's advocating for, it's actually an argument in my favor. As I said, students sign contracts because the value of playing on a football team is tremendous to them. Some people play play to play on intermural leagues for fun. Meanwhile college players get a lot of perks for free. Sure it's demanding, but that's a decision they make to help prepare them for the NFL. If that's not their goal then they need not play football and can choose to get a job instead, just like everybody else. [1] http://www.usatoday.com...