Many issues have been floating around the world of sports recently, particularly those related to paying college athletes. Some argue that athletics are so important that universities must allocate millions of dollars a year just to pay the students who play for them. As stated in a Huffington Post article on this topic, paying college athletes is like throwing a lit match into a haystack: once you start the fire, it keeps burning, making the situation worse. There are many differences between haystack and paying athletes. To begin with, throwing a needle in a haystack is a totally negative concept; everything will burn. However, by paying college athletes, some are able to find reasons why this might be a good thing. For example, some believe that paying athletes will bring more competition to the table and make some universities much more talented or gifted than others. Others say this will bring more money and more revenue to the program and school. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Another difference is the end of the situation. At the end of the fire there is smoke and eventually it will go out. But this is a problem that cannot be extinguished on its own. Whatever the ruling on the matter, someone will be upset and the "fire" will continue to burn. Consequently, in addition to these differences there are many similarities. One is the haystack going up in flames and with it the entire education system. If we pay our college athletes, the focus will be more on the monetary value they are able to achieve, and not on learning. College should prepare a student for life's work through learning, not be life's work. College sports will also become more like professional sports, which are mostly about money and less about the sport itself. The scholarships are linked to this. Aren't scholarships enough of an incentive? And how it is decided based on how much money each player receives. How much depends on how much they receive this monetary equivalent for an innate athletic ability. Continuing, this has to do with going up in flames. Throwing a lit match into that haystack makes everything go up. Just by paying college athletes many other problems arise. Paying athletes may result in more revenue, but how much of that will actually go back to the college or institution they play for? The problem that emerges is fairness towards other students. Young athletes already receive many things that non-athletes don't receive. Not only do they have the opportunity to travel and stay in the best hotels, but they also receive special treatments away from sport. Some athletes may receive special attention from certain professors or even people throughout the city where the college is located. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay A third similarity between the haystack fire and paying athletes is how quickly things will “burn.” The haystack will burn quickly, leaving nothing behind, and growing larger and larger as it goes. The same goes for this problem. Everyone wants to express their opinion on it, turning into a bigger and bigger issue. People will quickly become angry and rush to defend their side. Paying college athletes is like throwing a lit match into a haystack: the education system and other issues are up in flames and will happen very quickly. I think there are more problems with this idea than positives. I don't think it's worth it.