As money changes hands, debate rages across college sports over whether student-athletes should receive a portion of the profits. What is clear is that these athletes are not currently participating in the millions of dollars in profits. This fact raises a multitude of questions. What happens, positively or negatively, to players not receiving direct payment? Do managers think the players are not mature enough to handle money, is there a lack of additional monetary resources, or could there be another reason? The effects of this can be felt nationally by the hundreds of universities that compete in National Collegiate Athletic Association competitions. For this reason, the friction between the NCAA and the players is crucial and must be resolved. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayOne of the arguments why gamers should not be paid is that some feel they are already being rewarded for their efforts. In addition to receiving free tuition, housing and all tuition fees, players from top-tier institutions receive training in state-of-the-art facilities, which can prepare them for a professional career. An article written for the Casper, Wyoming, Star-Tribune states that a typical athlete will stay for five years. That's well over $100,000 and that amount doesn't include the training or "on-campus experience" the athletes receive (Wrong Idea). Another monetary factor that limits player payments is the lack of funds at most schools. According to Jeffery Dorfman, only 23 of the 128 Football Bowl Subdivisions, the highest level of college football, made money in 2012. Dorfman notes that this number varies from year to year, but is generally in the range twenty or less. This poses a problem because if there is no extra money, where is there money to pay the players? This would result in two main options: either eliminating non-revenue sports, which are typically funded by revenue sports such as men's basketball and men's soccer, or cutting costs for athletic department officials and coaches. Even if they decided to make these cuts, the money still might not be enough for lower-tier programs. If a college football team paid its players only one-tenth of the National Football League rookie minimum, or $420,000, it would still cost the team more than $3 million for an entire team. Another reason proponents of using paying players is that players simply aren't mature enough to handle a salary. An example used is current professional athletes. A multitude of players, just a few years after the end of their respective careers, are scraping the bottom of their bank accounts. This leads to the argument that if adult men can't manage money, how can college-age students? However, those who pay players use this same example to illustrate why athletes should be paid. These advocates argue that if these poor former professional athletes had learned how to manage their money in college, they wouldn't go bankrupt late in life. This situation is delicate, because it is more of a simulation situation since there is no concrete way to prove in one sense.