Paying Players for their likeness

RetroVK

RetroVK

This claim is disputed
Obviously I am against this

1. I believe this has to be done without team logos, and affiliation.
2. The players are not forced to play. They choose to play
3. They already receive scholarships
4. I think it can destroy locker rooms. All the sudden getting touches matters more ... with one guy making money off his likeness while others do not

5. But the main reason that I hate it is that it disproportionately benefits the big time schools through legal cheating. Some guy .. We will call him Mr. Booster... pays a kid $100,000 to do a commercial and he does it every year to the new freshmen 5 star recruits. Then a kid visits the school, and he hears about how Player A, Player B and Player C were 5 star recruits that were paid $100,000 for their likeness. What would you do? The small schools simply won't be able to compete with the big schools anymore. Texas will be elite again within a few years of this and the disparity between the haves and the have nots will grow. Heck, Knight at NIKE could probably turn Oregon into an elite unit too. Meanwhile, UTEP, Utah State, Miami Ohio, App State, etc. etc. ... either drop a notch or have zero capability of moving up (in the event there isn't a notch to drop to). It's such an awful idea on its face that one has to have complete hatred for the sport to support it.

It will ruin college football, or what is left of college football.

I heard a fella on the radio making a lot of these points last night and I think he is spot on.
 
It is a very rare player that actually benefits, who won't be benefiting by the NFL $$$ already for having showcased and mastered their skill while at college. Meaning, it would mainly be a way for the rich to get richer ... Do you think Chase Young or Justin Herbert or Tua or J Taylor are going to be hurting for cash? Assuming that the rule is not for systemic cheating, then those are the types of players that will receive the money. Not the second string guy or the offensive lineman none of the fans care about.

Someone called into his show and mentioned Jalen Hurts as a player who could make money off his likeness but who will not have an NFL career. Fair enough as an example (Other than we all know OU pays their kids already - imagine how bad it gets after it is made easier to do!!!). But that type of player is few and far between.

So it will either benefit

1. Stud High School recruit who has done nothing for the school or team yet
2. NFL talented players who are already scoring a payday


Can you imagine the cheating for Grad Transfers that will occur? Line them up with the job and give them likeness $???

This is a trainwreck waiting to happen.
 
twinkie13 said:
And it’s mainly because colleges don’t want to write the check.
Click to expand...

How can they afford to? Most Athletic Departments are already losing money.

If you pay the college football player then do you have to pay the swimmer? If so, do you now have to spend the same amount of money promoting each sport? How does Title IX fit into all of this?

One idea might be to pay four and/or five year seniors who were freshmen at the same school? Thus eliminating the super talented that leave to the NFL early, eliminating the pay for play recruiting function, eliminating a lot of the jealousy, rewarding the school loyalty ... (This idea is terrible too .. just throwing bologna at the wall and seeing how it sticks).

The sport is voluntary, the kids who would benefit from likeness $ are already receiving scholarships while their peers are saddled with student loan debt, and without college football, those who would make a career in the sport wouldn't be able to "interview" for the NFL through their college efforts.

The whole thing is dumb dumb dumb
 
Because as it is now .. if you give the swimmer and the QB a scholarship, it doesn't matter how much you market .. but once you make the kids profit from likeness, wouldn't Title IX force the schools to spend equal marketing money for each sport??? Seems sexist to not give the girls sports the chance to profit off their likeness because you promote SEC, BIG, PAC, 12, ACC football like crazy.
 
But the whole thing is just a means for the big schools to win more while the smaller schools will have to drop their football programs.
 
powerhouse schools such as the University of Texas, the University of Tennessee and the University of Alabama each topped the $100 million profitability threshold, while 52 schools failed to crack $100,000.

The above was from an article I read this morning.... 52 schools didn't make over $100,000 last year off their football program. How do they afford to pay players? Are 52 schools then gonna have to shut down their football programs? Or just operate at a loss? How much do they then have to raise tuition on everyone else?

It cannot be done. It will destroy the sport.
 
RetroVK said:
But the whole thing is just a means for the big schools to win more while the smaller schools will have to drop their football programs.
Click to expand...

Easy......smaller schools should schedule to play the big schools ( top teams) to get paid while getting routed at the same time.....we all know that these smaller schools aren’t going nowhere with their programs.....why not keep the programs afloat and give the student athletes free education.....
 
number2 said:
Easy......smaller schools should schedule to play the big schools ( top teams) to get paid while getting routed at the same time.....we all know that these smaller schools aren’t going nowhere with their programs.....why not keep the programs afloat and give the student athletes free education.....
Click to expand...

Well that is the other thing ..... when the football programs go down ... let's say we lose 30 of them .... how many student athletes are no longer getting an education?

Playing is voluntary. If it is not a win for the student athlete, he/she shouldnt play. Problem solved
 
RetroVK said:
But the whole thing is just a means for the big schools to win more while the smaller schools will have to drop their football programs.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the NCAA wanted it to be this way but they were forced to do something by overzealous lawmakers.
 
I believe a stipend is the only way to pay players, and only to those that remain at one school for 4 years (including RS). $50K/year. If a player opts out or x-fers, the money is put into the general scholarship funds for the school.

Those leaving early will benefit from NFL contracts, thus the need is not there. But for those that poured out their heart and soul, leave broken and battered, this provides a nest egg to purchase a house and get on their feet.
 
I think the players are already getting money in the form of free scholarships, amounting to to tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. They also get free gourmet buffets of any food they desire at any time. Personalized weight coach. state of art facilities. And opportunities for life post career for benefit of saying you played big time football. They also have real life wednesdays which already sets up the football players with inside track to jobs most stdents can't get. All the player has to do is have commitment and work ethic to play the sport. Just think, theres NAIA guys and d3 guys who get very little benefits besides free scholarship.

But what about all the money the kid is making the school ? .....I personally don't believe fans would stop watching their favorite team if these players were not on the team. In this case the school brand is far bigger than the impact of a few elite players. Let Chase Young and Tua and whoever else go play in xfl or some paid farm league for the nfl and let's see which game the fans watch more. Alabama Crimson Tide saturday football or startup league of random pay to play guys. The school pride comes before the elite talent.
 
Title IX won’t apply because the schools are t the ones paying. Also, boosters won’t just be throwing out huge amounts of money without getting a legit business return, else they’ll be out of money pretty quickly. Also, they’ll be subject to paying payroll taxes and other employee costs, or the student will be a 1099 and they’ll have to keep up with what they owe the government. Concerns about the bigger programs distancing themselves from the others are overblown - it’s already been happening since the beginning of the game and will continue no matter what. At best, this affords college athletes the same right to work as any other student. The guy who gets a full ride to Harvard can use his situation to get cushy paid internships at big law or finance firms, how is letting athletes do commercials any different? There will certainly be unintended consequences, but as long as they let the market and free enterprise work unencumbered, it will be fine. As long as it isn’t the schools themselves paying the players, I think this is a step in the right direction
 
RetroVK said:
Obviously I am against this

1. I believe this has to be done without team logos, and affiliation.
2. The players are not forced to play. They choose to play
3. They already receive scholarships
4. I think it can destroy locker rooms. All the sudden getting touches matters more ... with one guy making money off his likeness while others do not

5. But the main reason that I hate it is that it disproportionately benefits the big time schools through legal cheating. Some guy .. We will call him Mr. Booster... pays a kid $100,000 to do a commercial and he does it every year to the new freshmen 5 star recruits. Then a kid visits the school, and he hears about how Player A, Player B and Player C were 5 star recruits that were paid $100,000 for their likeness. What would you do? The small schools simply won't be able to compete with the big schools anymore. Texas will be elite again within a few years of this and the disparity between the haves and the have nots will grow. Heck, Knight at NIKE could probably turn Oregon into an elite unit too. Meanwhile, UTEP, Utah State, Miami Ohio, App State, etc. etc. ... either drop a notch or have zero capability of moving up (in the event there isn't a notch to drop to). It's such an awful idea on its face that one has to have complete hatred for the sport to support it.

It will ruin college football, or what is left of college football.

I heard a fella on the radio making a lot of these points last night and I think he is spot on.
Click to expand...

Why would the big schools necessarily benefit more than the smaller ones? These payments will have to be disclosed and come from legitimate businesses that would benefit from the kids’ likeness? There are just as many car dealerships and other big businesses around little schools as big ones. Wouldn’t this be evening the field a bit? Now a smaller school can get a kid because someone (other than the school) can pay them for their likeness.
 
RetroVK said:
powerhouse schools such as the University of Texas, the University of Tennessee and the University of Alabama each topped the $100 million profitability threshold, while 52 schools failed to crack $100,000.

The above was from an article I read this morning.... 52 schools didn't make over $100,000 last year off their football program. How do they afford to pay players? Are 52 schools then gonna have to shut down their football programs? Or just operate at a loss? How much do they then have to raise tuition on everyone else?

It cannot be done. It will destroy the sport.
Click to expand...

But again the schools won’t be the ones paying so what does revenue generated have anything to do with it?

How many kids do you think are going to be cashing in that multiple programs are going to have to shut down? I don’t see how this is going to change much...isn’t the contention that the bigger schools are ALREADY arranging for some players to be paid? Now, the same thing happens, it’s all disclosed and smaller schools can now compete for kids by working with local businesses to get the kids paid a little bit.
 
takeit said:
Would they sell as many of "their" jerseys (I see what you did there) if his name (or Baker, or...) wasn't on it?
Click to expand...

I don't have the data but it would seem logical that they make more if they have the platers name attached
 
Rusty Trombone said:
He does.....its called a scholarship with free room and board....plus a showcase for his skills. College is where you go to learn, not get paid.
Click to expand...

The school pays them with a scholarship, room/board, access to facilities and a showcase. If someone else wants to pay them, why shouldn't they be able to earn money off the field?
 
RetroVK said:
No Jalen should not get a dollar from Oklahoma for selling their #1 Jersey
Click to expand...


As far as I can tell, under the new rules, he still wouldn't get a dollar from OU for selling his jersey. He would get a dollar+ from the jersey maker.
 
gps_3 said:
As far as I can tell, under the new rules, he still wouldn't get a dollar from OU for selling his jersey. He would get a dollar+ from the jersey maker.
Click to expand...

Because it is amateur athletics
Because it opens the door for horrific cheating
Because it creates more locker room issues
Because it takes money from the school and program
Because it raises tuition for everyone else
Because the small schools cannot compete for the athlete at that point (hard enough already with playoff system rigged against them)
Because it makes the player about the player instead of the team. We will get diva action like the NFL which we do not currently get in college
Because it taints the sport

There is more ... but that is enough right there.

It is a horrible idea and it will ruin the sport.
 
And I hope any player who gets his cheat money this way breaks his leg the first play of his career, has his scholarship revoked, fails in his classes now that he isn't getting forced tutoring, and has a shitty life. I then hope he has a big falling out with the guy who paid him and breaks that guys leg too. Then I hope whatever big school team he plays for loses every game.

#playahata
 
RetroVK said:
Because it is amateur athletics
Because it opens the door for horrific cheating
Because it creates more locker room issues
Because it takes money from the school and program
Because it raises tuition for everyone else
Because the small schools cannot compete for the athlete at that point (hard enough already with playoff system rigged against them)
Because it makes the player about the player instead of the team. We will get diva action like the NFL which we do not currently get in college
Because it taints the sport

There is more ... but that is enough right there.

It is a horrible idea and it will ruin the sport.
Click to expand...


You ever work with someone who got paid more than you? Were you unable to work there because of it?

I don't see how it opens the door to "horrific cheating" if it will no longer be against the rules

While it's true that some donors will send their money to endorsements rather than the school, giving the money to the school is still a tax writeoff. Paying players to endorse your business is not. So I doubt it will be as bad as some fear, though I imagine the schools will jump at any chance they can get to raise tuition

While it's true some players will get paid more than others, that is life and that won't change when they are in NFL or in corporate America. It will be harder for the coaches sure, but let's not act like the players are going to be getting life-changing money here. They'll still have to perform in order to play at the next level.

This will change the sport far less than the new rules centered on player safety. Otherwise it will be business as usual
 
I just disagree with your entire post. And yes, people learn what others make and it effects their work in corporate America. it is one of several different reasons companies keep a tight lid on individual salaries. There are others.

If they pay the kids, inreally, really, really want them to roll back the safety rules.

Greedy players, ma

Fuck those entitled assholes
 
I think this is a long-overdue step forward. Very happy to see to the right move being made here.

Some of the takes in this thread are frightening.
 
RetroVK said:
I just disagree with your entire post. And yes, people learn what others make and it effects their work in corporate America. it is one of several different reasons companies keep a tight lid on individual salaries. There are others.

If they pay the kids, inreally, really, really want them to roll back the safety rules.

Greedy players, ma

Fuck those entitled assholes
Click to expand...

I agree that it will change the game, in ways we can't even imagine right now. But I'm a free market absolutist, so if there is an avenue for someone to improve his financial situation, I'm not going to tell him he can't do it. Literally any other person in the country is allowed to market their talents and be compensated for it, think it should be the same for college athletes. I am 100% against the schools or conferences paying them

I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I'd guess Tom Brady makes more per year than his entire OL combined. They still manage to block for him
 
gps_3 said:
I agree that it will change the game, in ways we can't even imagine right now. But I'm a free market absolutist, so if there is an avenue for someone to improve his financial situation, I'm not going to tell him he can't do it. Literally any other person in the country is allowed to market their talents and be compensated for it, think it should be the same for college athletes. I am 100% against the schools or conferences paying them

I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I'd guess Tom Brady makes more per year than his entire OL combined. They still manage to block for him
Click to expand...

I am not trying to stop any of the kids from making money.

I am saying this

1. To play AMATEUR college athletics is a voluntary decision
2. If the player feels it is not in his or her best interest to play in the college sport, they don't have to play in the college sport.
3. I am also a Capitalist. I am all for the player going out and starting his or her own league and making those rules, for his league, whatever he/she wants them to be. If the kid thinks that is a better deal then do that.
4. While their peers are getting saddled with hundreds of thousands in student loan debt, these players are given a free scholarship which is worth some large % less than what their peers are paying for.
5. I think it is important to maintain as level a playing field as possible for the FBS schools. I firmly believe, and I don't think it can be argued otherwise, that this hurts the smaller schools which are already at a major disadvantage, and helps the Blue Bloods which are already benefiting from a huge advantage.

I am mainly against this for my personal gain. I love college football and I think this is a HUGE step in destroying the sport. Concussion issues have nothing on this idea.

Also, I do have some questions on how the kid is supposed to make his money ... they cannot use school logos, is my understanding. So you just make a burnt orange jersey and put your name "Ehlinger" on the back and hope someone buys it? Where do you get it sold? I suppose wherever decides to sell a Jersey can also sell patches to imprint on jerseys in the same store? Buy the Jersey, then buy the logo and have it imprinted on there? Are they allowed to reference the school in commercials? I might be wrong on the not allowed to use the school logo but I want to say that is what I heard.
 
Also once the kid is making money, the fan gets to treat him like crap, right? No more free passes for being a student-athlete .. you are now just a professional athlete.

I hate hate hate hate hate hate this idea.
 
I disagree with the free market angle, but the NCAA caved to politics so it doesn’t matter. Prior to this athletes were free to pursue pay for their likeness, no one was stopping them. They just couldn’t compete as an NCAA athlete, and they knew that well in advance of becoming an NCAA athlete. Now we’re in a situation where government has forced a change to NCAA policy because the free market doesn’t actually give enough of a shit to support what everyone thinks the athletes are entitled to, a place to be paid while serving how ever many years they’re required to after high school before joining their chosen professional league.

It will most definitely bring cheating out from under the table. Whether that destroys the game remains to be seen. I think the bigger question is how long it takes for someone to make a Title IX case out of it because we all know when the football team is getting hundreds of thousands in endorsements and female athletes get next to nothing, or literally nothing, it won’t take long for a lot of folks to get disgruntled. All it would probably take is for the school to be seen as being a conduit or agent of sorts for these deals, and a plaintiff, lawyer, and judge wanting to make a name for themselves to bring the whole thing crashing down.
 
The NCAA can use the word amateur until they're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that these players are the labor force of an industry with billions of dollars of annual revenue. The NCAA is a cartel that is artificially capping their cost of labor by enacting rules that prohibit the cartel members from paying labor more than the "cost" of their "education". Air quotes used because the cost to the university to add an additional student is practically nil and the value of the education received is quite low given how many are steered in academic directions that are dubious in order to maximize their availability for work.

Understand that labor costs in the NFL and NBA are roughly 50% of revenue. For the basketball tournament alone the NCAA is receiving around $1 billion per year from CBS for the television rights. If you take labor's $500 million share of that TV money and divide it into 350 teams with 13 scholarship players that's over $100K per player per year. And that's not the only source of revenue, there's also the regular season TV money paid to the conferences, plus ticket sales, merchandise, etc. Effectively these basketball players have a job that should pay $100-150K/year, but their employer has rigged the system such that instead of receiving said salary they get company scrip that can only be used to purchase an education plus room and board. It should be obvious that's a garbage deal for the player.
 
Free rent
Free Tuition
Free Food
Free Gym
Free Healthcare
Free Travel


All of it is tax free. When they get paid they have to pay taxes on their scholarship benefits, or they should anyway.

Even if I used your $100k scenario as you present it .. they are making more than that right now, particularly the ones at Northwestern, Stanford, Texas, and Duke ...

if it is a garbage deal for the player then the player shouldn't do it. This isn't forced on them. They get to do what is in their best interest. We shouldn't force price controls on the NCAA.

Pretty soon you will be making the awful argument that the minimum wage is a good thing.

The players are winning, big time.

Why aren't they quitting in droves??

Why hasn't someone come along and made a different league for these guys to prosper in? Oh it isn't easy?? Really?

Bunch of bullshit. Not saying that all players feel entitled but this REEKS of entitlement policy. We can see how that type of policy works out over time. It destroys everything it touches. College Football won't be different.
 
gps_3 said:
The school pays them with a scholarship, room/board, access to facilities and a showcase. If someone else wants to pay them, why shouldn't they be able to earn money off the field?
Click to expand...
Because it is opening pandora box and will hurt if not ruin college football. Kids will go where the money is, and obviously there are only 10-20 schools that have that kinda money/boosters. It will make the landscape unfair. I really dont understand what people dont get. College football is basically an internship....ya do it as an audition to get a job. Besides all that, those guys will kill locker rooms and team spirit. The running back and/or QB are making a $1,000,000 for doing a commercial for the local car dealership....what are the lineman getting?
 
W0lverine said:
The NCAA can use the word amateur until they're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that these players are the labor force of an industry with billions of dollars of annual revenue. The NCAA is a cartel that is artificially capping their cost of labor by enacting rules that prohibit the cartel members from paying labor more than the "cost" of their "education". Air quotes used because the cost to the university to add an additional student is practically nil and the value of the education received is quite low given how many are steered in academic directions that are dubious in order to maximize their availability for work.

Understand that labor costs in the NFL and NBA are roughly 50% of revenue. For the basketball tournament alone the NCAA is receiving around $1 billion per year from CBS for the television rights. If you take labor's $500 million share of that TV money and divide it into 350 teams with 13 scholarship players that's over $100K per player per year. And that's not the only source of revenue, there's also the regular season TV money paid to the conferences, plus ticket sales, merchandise, etc. Effectively these basketball players have a job that should pay $100-150K/year, but their employer has rigged the system such that instead of receiving said salary they get company scrip that can only be used to purchase an education plus room and board. It should be obvious that's a garbage deal for the player.
Click to expand...
Udderly ridiculous. These schools have to keep up facilities and pay staff. Yes, they are making money....when that money stops coming in because they have to pay the players, everything will suffer. Like doubling the minimum wage....half the people lose their jobs and the other half have to do twice the work. It's simple economics, but some people just dont get it.
 
Rusty Trombone said:
Because it is opening pandora box and will hurt if not ruin college football. Kids will go where the money is, and obviously there are only 10-20 schools that have that kinda money/boosters. It will make the landscape unfair. I really dont understand what people dont get. College football is basically an internship....ya do it as an audition to get a job. Besides all that, those guys will kill locker rooms and team spirit. The running back and/or QB are making a $1,000,000 for doing a commercial for the local car dealership....what are the lineman getting?
Click to expand...

You show me a car dealership paying a player $1 million for an ad, and I'll show you a dealership on the road to bankruptcy. Why aren't linemen quitting in droves in the NFL? Outside of elite LTs, they make on average less than the QBs, WR, DL, CB, and RBs. But in college, if an OL for Nebraska can get an extra $5K for appearing in an ad, or signing autographs, that's great. Of course the star players are going to get paid more. That's life. Get used to it. Rich guys have better looking girlfriends too.

You want to argue that this kills amateurism and the sport as we know it, I'm not arguing against you. The school is paying the player with the scholarship and the platform to audition for the next step. That's also true of non-athlete students on scholarship. They can still have another job if they want to have more money. Same should be true for the athletes. This will certainly complicate things for both the players and the coaches. The players will get to learn about paying taxes. There will be a push for the players to be able to hire agents, lawyers, publicists, etc. It won't be easy, but I do think it was the right decision
 
gps_3 said:
That's also true of non-athlete students on scholarship. They can still have another job if they want to have more money. Same should be true for the athletes.
Click to expand...
Athletes could also have jobs, even before this change.
 
RetroVK said:
Free rent
Free Tuition
Free Food
Free Gym
Free Healthcare
Free Travel


All of it is tax free. When they get paid they have to pay taxes on their scholarship benefits, or they should anyway.

Even if I used your $100k scenario as you present it .. they are making more than that right now, particularly the ones at Northwestern, Stanford, Texas, and Duke ...

if it is a garbage deal for the player then the player shouldn't do it. This isn't forced on them. They get to do what is in their best interest. We shouldn't force price controls on the NCAA.

Pretty soon you will be making the awful argument that the minimum wage is a good thing.

The players are winning, big time.

Why aren't they quitting in droves??

Why hasn't someone come along and made a different league for these guys to prosper in? Oh it isn't easy?? Really?

Bunch of bullshit. Not saying that all players feel entitled but this REEKS of entitlement policy. We can see how that type of policy works out over time. It destroys everything it touches. College Football won't be different.
Click to expand...



Football players are prevented from entering the NFL until 3 years after high school. Where else can they leverage their skill set except as an employee of the NCAA cartel? It can both be a garbage deal and remain an economically rational decision given the total control of the labor market. That these guys continue to play the sport despite the raw deal is merely evidence of the lack of alternatives.

Basic math will show you there isn’t an undergraduate degree anywhere in the USA that is worth as much as the money that would be going to these basketball and football players if they got paid a market wage. Anyone defending the status quo is de facto advocating for price controls on wages. So congratulations, you’re making the awful argument for a minimum (or in this case maximum) wage.

If anyone is being entitled it’s the all of the people who are benefiting from the status quo who have nothing to do with generating revenue. All of the athletic department administrators and coaches of non-revenue sports with 6-figure salaries. Plus tons of already financially well-off kids getting their education and hobbies subsidized (crew, lacrosse, swimming, tennis, golf, etc.). All of the money for that stuff is coming directly out of the pockets of the football/basketball player labor force. Those players are the reason the money exists but the financial benefits are spread out to a bunch of other unrelated people, sure sounds like socialism to me.
 
W0lverine said:
Football players are prevented from entering the NFL until 3 years after high school. Where else can they leverage their skill set except as an employee of the NCAA cartel?
Click to expand...
It sounds like your issue is with the NFL not the NCAA. Why should the NCAA have to change its model because people are pissed at the NFL? If serving time in the NCAA is such a shitty deal for the player why don’t they just tell schools to piss off and go play somewhere else?
 
M.O.T said:
It sounds like your issue is with the NFL not the NCAA. Why should the NCAA have to change its model because people are pissed at the NFL? If serving time in the NCAA is such a shitty deal for the player why don’t they just tell schools to piss off and go play somewhere else?
Click to expand...

The NCAA should forced to change its model because its model is a cartel. Nobody who believes in free market capitalism should be in favor of a cartel.
 
W0lverine said:
1. Football players are prevented from entering the NFL until 3 years after high school. Where else can they leverage their skill set except as an employee of the NCAA cartel? It can both be a garbage deal and remain an economically rational decision given the total control of the labor market. That these guys continue to play the sport despite the raw deal is merely evidence of the lack of alternatives.

Basic math will show you there isn’t an undergraduate degree anywhere in the USA that is worth as much as the money that would be going to these basketball and football players if they got paid a market wage. 2. Anyone defending the status quo is de facto advocating for price controls on wages. So congratulations, you’re making the awful argument for a minimum (or in this case maximum) wage.

3. If anyone is being entitled it’s the all of the people who are benefiting from the status quo who have nothing to do with generating revenue. All of the athletic department administrators and coaches of non-revenue sports with 6-figure salaries. Plus tons of already financially well-off kids getting their education and hobbies subsidized (crew, lacrosse, swimming, tennis, golf, etc.). All of the money for that stuff is coming directly out of the pockets of the football/basketball player labor force. Those players are the reason the money exists but the financial benefits are spread out to a bunch of other unrelated people, sure sounds like socialism to me.
Click to expand...

Bolded #1 - This is a beef with the NFL, not the NCAA. Also, there are a lot of jobs which require college education to get considered for the job. This is a normal thing a lot of people have to deal with. The NFL doesn't want to waste their money on undeveloped players in the same way some companies don't want to hire undeveloped employees who have little education. And guess what ... everyone else has to go to college too to get the better job, EXCEPT THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

Bolded #2 - There are no price controls set on football players wages. You are not making a price control argument. You are making a monopoly argument. As someone with a noncompete agreement that hinders me from employment opportunities for 2 years, I sympathize somewhat with a niche business, with limited opportunities. But there is no price control to maximum wage. The player is free to play wherever he chooses or start his own business.

bolded #3 - Title IX. Good luck. Socialism is by force of gun. Every company has revenue producers and non-revenue producers, and don't always (almost never actually) value the highest revenue person above non-revenue producers. In other words, an organization spreads it's wages as it sees fit and that is not socialism.

Your definitions are off base with both price controls and socialism.

I think you have some arguments with respect to monopolies sort of buried within your comments (similar arguments that one could make for google, facebook, amazon, etc....

Agree to disagree.
 
Just wish I was born athletic so i could get the head start on life all of these guys get.
 
RetroVK said:
Just wish I was born athletic so i could get the head start on life all of these guys get.
Click to expand...

Most in poor neighborhoods and no father. They probably wish to be born in your position. You would give up your dad to be athletic? SMH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Playmaker's Week 0
Replies
2
Views
86
B.A.R.
B.A.R.
2daBank
Week 4 ncaa props
Replies
23
Views
238
2daBank
2daBank
B.A.R.
Week One B1G Thread....
Replies
28
Views
589
B.A.R.
B.A.R.
He Hate Me
Player Props Week 2 Discussion
Replies
36
Views
281
He Hate Me
He Hate Me
VirginiaCavs
Boston College vs. Florida State Preview Article
Replies
4
Views
271
VirginiaCavs
VirginiaCavs
Back
Top