Should the NCAA and universities be pressured or forced to change longstanding policy?
If colleges were required to pay athletes' salaries, amateur college sports could change for the worst.
The NCAA is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletes and "helps over 480,000 college student-athletes who compete annually in college sports."
In its 1984 NCAA v. Board of Regents decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "artificial limits" on the quantity of broadcasted football games made by the NCAA reduced competition and violated laws. The Court also said that restrictions on athletes were key to the protection of the college football "product."
Image 2. Bias and reliability ratings performed by Ad Fontes Media, an independent news ratings organization. Graphic: Newsela staff

"In order to preserve the character and quality of the (NCAA) 'product,' athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like. … Thus, the NCAA plays a vital role in enabling college football to preserve its character, and as a result, enables a product to be marketed which might otherwise be unavailable."
The Court believed that paying college athletes would cause a popular alternative to big-time pro sports to lose its luster. But there are a lot of other bad things that will happen if the NCAA drops restrictions on paying salaries to athletes.
Eliminating "no salary" rules will favor large, well-funded athletic programs over others.
It will also motivate large college athletic departments' funds to bid for popular school basketball and football superstars. This can create conflict between stars and other players.
What is the summary of this
What is the summary