The real question shouldn't be whether college athletes should get paid... Its the throughly American idea that educational institutions should even be in the business of sports.

If you look at Baseball in the US, Hockey in North America or Soccer around the world, you see a much different (and more rational) way that the sports formed into their current incarnations than Football & Basketball. Historically, you can see the development of those two sports & why it is the way it is now (and how the NCAA has spread it beyond those two sports)... but it really makes no sense.

These other sports all have college counterparts but nobody screaming about how those college athletes are getting screwed by the system. That's because those sports have professional minor leagues or development systems that are not tied to the originating idea of "club sports" (i.e. you have to be a part of a non-sports institution to be eligible to play for a team).

How about this for a question instead... Why is the ability for an athlete to play a college sport generally limited/tied to the normal 4 years of undergrad studies?

If you are representing the institution that you must be a part of, then why do you only have 4 years of "eligibility"? Why does it matter that you spend 4 years for your Bachelors and 2 years getting your Masters so you are now in your 7th year on the Football team (scholarship or not... Nike paying you or not)?

If you do a bunch of AP work in high school, "red shirt" your 1st year in college (making you a Junior academically before you even step on a field) & get a medical "red shirt" in another year you can actually be on athletic scholarship as a Doctoral candidate, so the limitation is not based on academic progress. So, if you are a student why shouldn't you be eligible to participate and represent the college you attend?