As money changes hands increases, debate rages throughout college athletics over whether student-athletes should get a share of the profits. What is clear is that these athletes are not currently sharing in the millions of dollars in profit. This fact leads to a multitude of questions. What is happening, positively or negatively, as a result of players not receiving direct payment? Do the referees think that the players are not mature enough to handle money, are there a lack of additional monetary resources or could there be another reason? The effects of this can be felt nationwide by the hundreds of universities that take part in National Collegiate Athletic Association competitions. For this reason, the friction between the NCAA and the players is crucial and must be addressed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay One of the arguments for why players shouldn't be paid is because some believe they are already compensated for their efforts. In addition to receiving free tuition, housing and all tuition free, players at top-tier institutions receive training in state-of-the-art facilities, which can prepare them for a professional career. An article written for the Star-Tribune in Casper, Wyoming, states that a typical athlete will stay for five years. This is well over $100,000 and this amount does not include the training or "campus experience" that athletes receive (misconception). Another monetary factor, which limits payments to players, is the lack of funding at most schools. According to Jeffery Dorfman, only 23 of the 128 subdivisions in the Football Bowl, college football's highest level, earned money in 2012. Dorfman notes that the number varies from year to year, but is typically around twenty or less. This presents a problem, because if there is no extra money where is there money to pay the players? That would involve two main options: cutting non-revenue sports, which typically receive funding from revenue sports like men's basketball and soccer, or cutting the costs of athletics department officials and coaches. Even if they decide to make these cuts, the money still may not be enough for lower-level programs. If a college football team paid players just a tenth of the National Football League's rookie minimum, $420,000, it would still cost the team over $3 million for the entire team. manage a salary. One example used concerns current professional athletes. A multitude of players, just a few years away from 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 advocate paying 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 money in college they wouldn't go bankrupt late in life. This situation is tricky, because it's more of a "what if" situation since there is no concrete way to prove one way or the other. However, what if the reason players aren't receiving this money is that others want it for themselves? Another cause for not paying players could be the result of one of the seven deadly sins: greed. Since 2006, the average salary of a college football coach has increased 70 percent to nearly 1.7.