Apparently in response to a petition by university athletes, the NCAA approved an increase of $2,000 in scholarship money paid to those who both attend college and play sports.

This reform is subject to conference approval and it comes with the application of tougher academic standards on athletic recruits. But it seems to be the NCAA’s attempt to apply salve to repeated calls to pay football—and to a lesser extent basketball—players for their on campus appearances.

Yes, college football and basketball generate billions in revenue through television and merchandise. But running men’s and women’s programs in those sports, as well as gymnastics, golf, baseball, field hockey, lacrosse and so on, plus stadium upkeep, medical care, etc. costs money, as well. Because of this, less than 20 of the 120 athletic departments in the FBS—the old 1-A—operate in the black. Smaller programs face greater financial challenges.

We believe, however, that those who argue in favor of paying “market value” to scholar-athletes overlook a salient fact: those on scholarship receive up to five years of tuition, meals, housing, books and quality education—free of charge. Many graduate students on assistantships providing valuable research and teaching services in exchange for education must pay their own housing, meals and books. They contribute to breakthroughs in things of perhaps lesser import than sports, such as agriculture, science, astronomy, history, literature or psychology.

College athletes willingly trade their efforts for both an education and for exposure—not just on television, but to boosters who hold upper management positions with corporations. They could choose otherwise.

If they fail to take advantage of these opportunities, it falls on them. But to say they deserve something more than other students, toiling toward an uncertain future, insults the value of education.