Summary and response-counterargument- fair play: should college athletes get paid

In the article, Fair play: should college athletes get paid , the author Rebecca Zissou is against paying college athletes and argues that college students are already getting paid, they get a free education, “Student athletes should remember that their main purpose while in school is to get an education, not to get paid”. She not only sets her negative point of view of paying athletes, but as well uses outside resources to prove her point. Zissou also states that "Many top players receive tuition, books, tutoring, housing, meals, clothing, elite coaching, medical care, travel expenses, and career counseling,". This argument that college athletes do not get paid directly but do have expenses paid, is constantly seen throughout the article. The use of strong diction and emotion in Zissou’s writing helps try to persuade her audience, as to why her argument is correct. 

Zissou is correct when she says that athletes do get a free education, but what she fails to bring to light is, that it is rare for all athletes to get a full scholarship and fails to acknowledge how time consuming collegiate sports are.  What many people fail to see is that these college athletes are not only athletes but as well as human beings who still have to find time to eat, sleep, study, and have a social life. I believe that there are other methods such as: not pay athletes directly, but with that extra money that they are gaining, invest that money to the athletics program which will potentially help with recruitment money and better the program, and lastly do not let the NCAA get involved with that money under any circumstances.