Quote :

"^^ maybe you're not helping YOUR case by dismissing reasonable ideas just because they are associated with some boogeyman label you've applied. I'm anti-exploitation and pro-freedom of choice. If people want to get paid to play sports for a college or any other organization, there generally shouldn't be artificial barriers to that opportunity. that's the anti-exploitation. Likewise, if people want to play sports for a college or organization and don't want to get paid, or are happy to be compensated in ways other than cash, then that is there right to choose as well. that's the pro-freedom of choice."

You can not be anti-exploitation while allowing people to enter contracts that are inherently unfair to them. We have a minimum wage for a reason. We did away with company stores for a reason. We have unions for a reason. There is an inherent imbalance of power between owners and workers and you can't leave that gap wide open for workers to be taken advantage of.

The California bill is a start, but it's still totally unfair for non-star players, and especially for women in the same sports. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar wrote an excellent article about college sports exploitation a few years ago. It's a quick read and is very illuminating about the struggles of college athletes. It's not as simple as "you play, you get a free education".

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/11/college-athletes-of-the-world-unite/

Quote :

"frankly, I don't think universities should have athletic programs period. universities are for education, all this big money athletics is a distraction and a drain on public resources and attention. let people go play in professional or semi-professional leagues and make their money if they want."

There's something we agree on.

[Edited on October 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

10/1/2019 11:19:42 AM

That is some freshman level economic understanding right there. I hope you don't voice those opinions in the real world, where you don't have the advantage of being an anonymous account.

Quote :

""frankly, I don't think universities should have athletic programs period. universities are for education, all this big money athletics is a distraction and a drain on public resources and attention."

Athletics is core to a University's mission of developing a well balanced student. It has been demonstrated time and again that physical exercise is closely correlated with mental acuity.

Athletics programs also drive enrollment and heighten college profiles, often resulting in financial windfalls for the institutions that happen far away from fields and arenas.

10/1/2019 12:44:17 PM

Quote :

"Athletics is core to a University's mission of developing a well balanced student. It has been demonstrated time and again that physical exercise is closely correlated with mental acuity. "

lol, only a small fraction of the student body play on a university's sports team. you know, you can still have PE classes and intramural sports without having athletic programs

10/1/2019 12:50:57 PM

Quote :

" It has been demonstrated time and again that physical exercise is closely correlated with mental acuity"

build a gym for students rather than stadiums and arenas. let other professional organizations handle the sports as entertainment industry

Quote :

" Athletics programs also drive enrollment"

maybe universities should focus on the quality of the education they provide to drive enrollment.

[Edited on October 1, 2019 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2019 12:54:11 PM

Quote :

"That is some freshman level economic understanding right there. I hope you don't voice those opinions in the real world, where you don't have the advantage of being an anonymous account."

lmao

10/1/2019 12:58:01 PM

Quote :

"That is some freshman level economic understanding right there. I hope you don't voice those opinions in the real world, where you don't have the advantage of being an anonymous account."

what in that post do you think is radical?

10/1/2019 1:02:04 PM

Lol, nothing in that post is radical. It is literally the most basic opinion that can be refuted with an entry level economics course or a simple google search.

10/1/2019 1:25:16 PM

can you refute the concept of individual workers having less power than owners?

10/1/2019 1:28:20 PM

He’s just doing the thing that Friedmanites do - treat all of economics as a hard science and claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is unknowledgeable.

Did Adam Smith know much about economics?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power

Quote :

"It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.[1]"

10/1/2019 2:13:09 PM

This one is really tough.

I certainly feel that a lot about how the NCAA operates is unfair, and the amount of money is insane and for players to not get a share at all of the profits beyond the scholarship and small stipend is pretty insane. I do also think that it is fair for the people that argue that the "value of a scholarship" is legit compensation for most. Cost of school has become so astronomical, and the value of that scholarship these days can be quite a lot, not to mention that these players get access to some of the best facilities to fine tune their craft for free. Trainers, sports medical team, speed and agility coaches, sometimes better meals and studying support other students don't receive. I think that varies player to player and team to team how much value it truly is, but I don't think it should be so easily dismissed by some that the value of that scholarship is a joke and can't count as real compensation relative to what the NCAA makes. For many that scholarship is more than enough and life changing, and certainly provides a launching pad to make the big professional contracts.

At the same time the thought that schools and companies make all that money from the likeness of an athlete and they can't get any piece is hard to rationalize. And there is plenty of money right now flowing into these institutions for these athletes, it is just going to the school who then puts it into the facilities and uses that to entice the players. The shift would be simply giving that money directly to the players. I do think it could hurt donations to the universities significantly, if instead of a booster giving to the school they decide to just give it to the players that could leave a large financial gap not flowing toward the schools anymore. I think that is what could hurt the non-revenue sports, as that money helps those sports even if it is non-directly(other teams use the facilities, the stadiums, the arenas, etc).

I guess the question I come to is how do you stop the millionaire/billionaire who basically creates fake commercials and pays the player, or a school telling a kid if they come there they have a person who will buy their custom jersey for 1 million dollars. Legit money from your likeness vs. someone just using that as the mechanism to legally pay the players. Maybe the NCAA creates a committee that somehow approves these deals? Create some type of reasonable compensation level based on industry standards? Maybe it doesn't matter, and if someone wants to buy a kids jersey for 1 million dollars free market, go for it.

I do think this will hurt non-revenue sports though, because if money is pulled out of the system/athletic departments they aren't going to cut the football coach salary or stop building the new football training room. They will cut the track scholarships or get rid of the gymnastic team.

Tough one, I go back and forth on it, and there are solid arguments on both sides.

10/1/2019 7:26:02 PM

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/board-governors-starts-process-enhance-name-image-and-likeness-opportunities

10/29/2019 4:33:48 PM

^any policy they come up with that isnt athletes can earn income all the ways non athlete students can is BS and i hope players strike during the ncaa basketball tournament or college football playoff over it

10/29/2019 5:18:19 PM

Quote :

"I guess the question I come to is how do you stop the millionaire/billionaire who basically creates fake commercials and pays the player, or a school telling a kid if they come there they have a person who will buy their custom jersey for 1 million dollars."

Serious question. Why do you want to prevent this from happening. If T. Boone Pickens wants to pay Tua $1MM to play at Oklahoma State, wouldn't we all agree that would be a good thing for Tua and his family?

The only part I don't like is that they need to make a fake commercial. Spend that money on a backup QB.

10/29/2019 9:52:32 PM

this fuckin guy

https://twitter.com/SenatorBurr/status/1189262863552208896

10/29/2019 11:57:44 PM