The NCAA football and basketball tournaments have long become well-recognized and popular events. They regularly grasp the attention of millions of viewers. Such popularity can not come unrewarded. And, indeed, the reward is there – the NCAA reports substantial revenues from TV advertisement costs and merchandise. This amount of money rarely reflects on the wealth of athletes, however counter-intuitive that may sound. The heated debate goes on to this day, but the very fundamental assumption of an obligatory reward resulting from a successful business model seems to be hardly applicable in this case. The NCAA gives college students a great opportunity to try themselves in a sport on a large scale. This opportunity is backed by the huge amount of work the association puts into promoting itself and garnering public attention. Students who decide to participate instantly find the possibilities that only can be rivaled by the field of professional sport. However, the NCAA’s funding seems to exceed the amount just enough to cover the expenses, with reports of nearly billion-dollar revenues (“NCAA Revenues” par. 2). This, naturally, leads to the assumption that the effort of student-athletes, who are largely involved in making this amount of money, should be rewarded. Besides this basic assumption, proponents of such a scheme point to the fact that students engage in sports that may result in trauma that will restrict them from studying (“Should NCAA Athletes Be Paid?”). However, several controversial points should be noted that complicate the matter. First, and this is frequently pointed out by opponents of payment – there are too many factors the financial outcome will depend on (McCauley par. 4). For example, the sufficient bulk of the money the NCAA makes comes from the publicity(“NCAA Revenues”). More popular sports gain more payoff from the advertisement prices. The logical conclusion is that athletes that participate in more popular sports should be paid more. But the important question here is if their effort is less valuable if the sport they go in for is less popular on TV. This also brings up intricate gender issues. Statistics show that men’s basketball championship garnered the attention of nine times as many viewers as its women’s counterpart. Should it be deemed as proof that women put less effort into the game? And will it result in them being paid less? Second, but arguably more important, is the fundamental goal of students who enter a college. While the magnitude of opportunities offered by the NCAA overshadows it, the fact is it offers additional possibilities, not a primary career. Students who instead decide to devote their time and effort to sports have an opportunity to do so by signing a contract. NCAA greatly enhances their chances of finding a good offer, with NCAA athletes stably making it to the news with signed million-dollar contracts. That is not to say students participating in sports should not be rewarded. A good way of doing this becomes evident if one takes a closer look at the second point of the argument. As studying is a fundamental goal of college students, the ideal way of rewarding a student is the athletic scholarship. This will essentially ensure that sports do not interfere with th