he legend of Johnny Manziel continues to grow with every touchdown he throws and autograph he signs. Texas A&M’s superstar quarterback’s popularity has increased exponentially since his historic first-year campaign last season, which concluded with the Heisman Trophy and a Cotton Bowl victory.

Johnny “Football” has been in the limelight since his Heisman victory for many not-so-flattering accomplishments as well. Along with being arrested last summer, Manziel has been seen partying in bars and casinos around the country. This would seem logical for a superstar athlete with as much popularity as he has, if only the red-shirt sophomore wasn’t 20…

Most recently, Manziel has made headlines for allegedly selling over 1,000 of his autographs to sports brokers in south Florida for financial gain, which violates NCAA rules, stating that no athlete can financially benefit from athletics while participating in them.

Manziel’s punishment for such an egregious violation you ask? A half game suspension in Texas A&M’s first game against Rice University. Many in the sports community felt that the suspension was a mere slap on the wrist to a player of Manziel’s magnitude. To add salt to the wound, the quarterback went on to throw for 94 yards and three touchdowns.

Manziel’s most recent buffoonery has led to the resurfacing of a topic that has been highly debated over the years: should college athletes be paid to play?

Many feel that athletes should get some form of compensation for all the time and effort they put into their sport, whether that be in the form of a stipend or another monetary payment.

The main argument comes from the idea that many major universities make lucrative profits off of their student athletes, especially during football and basketball season. Primarily on the division I level, schools make a large portion of their profits off of athletic merchandise and ticket sales. If an institution can profit off athletics, why can’t the students?

This proposition opens a can of worms that could never be truly worked out in my opinion. Does every student athlete get paid the same salary? Do athletes that perform better on the field receive a better pay rate? Would students choose a school for the sole fact that it has the ability to pay its athletes more? These are all questions that would open a Pandora’s box of confusion for universities and athletic programs alike.

With that being said, being a student athlete is a privilege, especially at the collegiate level. You have the opportunity to obtain a college degree while playing a sport that you love. College athletes should not be looking to make a profit off of playing at this level. Playing a sport should be compensation in and of itself

This is the main reason why I feel college sports are more enjoyable to watch than their professional counterparts. Student athletes are playing for the love of the game, and that is the way it should be. This can especially be seen on the DIII level where athletic scholarships are not awarded. DIII athletes are playing because they truly enjoy the sport, searching for no other extrinsic values.

While I do not feel that student-athletes should be compensated for their achievements on the field, I do not think that they should be reprimanded for their ability  to profit off of their accomplishments. While many of Manziel’s actions were foolish, I do not believe he should be faulted for trying to profit off his name. Institutions like Texas A&M have undoubtedly profited off of the success of their superstar quarterback. While I do not believe A&M should pay Manziel, I do think Johnny “Football” should be able to do the same.