Despite professional sports being a source of income for many athletes, college athletes are not paid. This is termed as exploitation of student-athletes by Sack (93). This paper explicates the reasons why college athletes ought to be paid. There are opposing arguments that college athletes ought not to be paid to play. For instance, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has implemented policies that do not allow colleges to compensate their athletes for attending their institution other than through covering for their tuition fees or scholarships (Arnold 121). The NCAA also argues that college athletes are not professionals and therefore should not be paid (Arnold 121). Some people conversely argue that the debate to pay college athletes is not justified since they are already benefiting through their scholarships. As other students are paying for their tuition therefore, athletes are not charged anything and thus paying them extra would be unfair to other students. According to Woods, college sports are a source of income for learning institutions (63). People have to pay in order to be allowed to watch college athletics. In order to maximize their profits, many colleges have invested huge sums of money in constructing stadiums that have the capacity to accommodate thousands of people. Woods further argues that colleges add to their income through parking fees, concessions, souvenirs, and the luxury boxes that come with substantial fees for alumni or business people who want to entertain clients (64). Despite these huge profits from athletics, colleges do not pay their athletes. This can be construed as an exploitation of the talents of these athletes. There is a relationship between sports and the quality of education athletes get. As postulated by Delaney and Madigan, athletes may not achieve the high academic performance they could have otherwise achieved if they were not involved.