Earlier today, news broke that Ohio State quarterback Terrelle Pryor and four other Buckeyes will be suspended for the first five games of next season for receiving "improper benefits". Apparently, these players received cash for selling trophies, rings, jerseys, and awards, and also received improper benefits from a tattoo parlor. This raises a question that has been part of an ongoing dispute for many years now - should NCAA student-athletes get paid?
Section 12 of the NCAA's bylaws for student athletes reads “An individual loses amateur status and thus shall not be eligible for intercollegiate competition in a particular sport if the individual [among other things]: uses his or her athletics skill (directly or indirectly) for pay in any form in that sport; [or] accepts a promise of pay even if such pay is to be received following completion of intercollegiate athletics participation”
It also states that receiving improper benefits from merchants or boosters as a result of one's athletic participation is in violation of NCAA student policies. So what Pryor and his teammates did is clearly against the rules. But should players be allowed to receive cash for play?
This slideshow will present five reasons in favor of paying the student-athletes, and five reasons against such a proposition.