Across the country, NCAA Division I athletes are continuously in the heat of debate about whether or not they should be paid for their hard work at the school. Many people make the argument that these student athletes are spending so much time on and off the field in preparation for their sport, that they are putting in as many, if not more, hours as a full-time job.

These students, while putting in so many hours to their sports, are also bringing in so much revenue for their school through media coverage, earned awards and titles, championships, ticket sales, and so many other things. These schools are generally sponsored by one of "the big three" brands (Nike, Under Armour, or Adidas), and these companies pay so much money to the school, while the students are wearing their brands as walking billboards.

These students receive no direct compensation; they do not receive paychecks for their contribution to the schools finances. Instead, they receive big scholarships, often full-ride scholarships. This is often considered compensation from people on the opposite side of the debate. Student athletes receive many benefits from the school, which are often considered equal compensation.

The big question, though, is whether or not these means of compensation are truly equal. Should student athletes be paid for the revenue they bring in for their school, as well as big companies such as the big three? Should students be receiving more benefits, on top of the ones they are already receiving, because of the amount of publicity and increase in statistics they are providing for their school?

These questions are all up to interpretation, and unfortunately, because each side of the debate is a polar opposite, there is no true answer. This will be a debate that will remain so controversial and open forever, because there is no solution. There is no way to compensate these students, and also not compensate these students simultaneously, unless we continue under this system of illegal bribery.

Student athletes deserve recognition and benefits, but do they truly receive direct compensation? Given the information and both sides of the argument, that's up to you.