(if anyone) mentions is that schools are currently paying students for their "labor" via work study programs and cooperative agreements/grants/contracts. If you look the amount of funds a school receives on a federal or state cooperative agreement, grant, and/or contract, then it may end up being greater than the revenue generated in athletics. For that reason I have no problem with schools paying student-athletes because they are already paying non-student athletes regardless if those non-student athletes are on scholarship or not.

Now if the schools decide to increase how much they are paying the student-athletes, then I would think it would be only a matter of time before the non-student athletes demanding the same amount of pay for their "labor." Is there really that much difference between "working" part time at Squires Student Center, on a government funded research study, or on the athletic field? One could make the argument that in all 3 examples the school is providing experience and training for that student to take with him/her into the "working world" after college (assuming there is a pro league in that particular sport). If the former student-athlete isn't able to "work" in a pro league, then it isn't any different than a non-student athlete getting a job outside his/her major because he/she wasn't able to find one in his/her major.
[Post edited by VTHokie2000 at 02/19/2016 1:28PM]