I think the NCAA is morally justified in its ruling that colleges and universities can not pay its student athletes, although the institution can make as much money as it can on ticket sales. I believe the mass population believes this is a fair practice, mainly due to the fact that the institution usually gives the athlete a free education and other perks such as free room and board. Therefore the athlete doesn't need a lot of money. Furthermore at this point in the athlete's life, education is more important and money would blur the lines for the athlete. The athlete may start feeling pressure to perform until it pulls all of his attention away from his studies in an effort to do better on the field and that would be disastrous for the future well being of the athlete.
I think it's also part of the education process is to work hard for your money in the traditional way like working at a dept store or mall.
This will prepare the athlete for professional salary he may receive later by appreciating the value of the dollar. I have heard advocates for the other side of my position, in which they say the sport is the students job and since the school makes money from these events they should the share those profits with the athletes. They go on to say that the athlete shouldn't have to work and that the sport alone is work enough and if the institutions paid the athlete they wouldn't need to worry about finding a job on top of all their other extracurricular activities. They feel this is over extending the athlete needlessly and in paying them they would perform better on the field and in class also. Now, in my view that reason...