ok...now that at least I find a valid perspective. I think we have no clue how this will play out. It may be that the laws of unintended consequences will destroy college sports, or at least the major sports of FB and BB players getting financial compensation was a long time coming. The NCAA had their collective heads in the sand for decades about this. They could have actually starting developing frameworks to at least set up some guard rails but they refused to see the train barreling down the tracks and that's a big reason why NIL seems for Wild West and out of control. I think college sports, especially football, will never be the same I just don't think it will do any good to blame the players or try and restrict the compensation they can receive.
This always seemed ridiculous to me. Not only the athletes couldn't afford to eat at Chipolote; the rules banned them from getting a job at chipolte to work and be able to afford crappy fast food. There could have been a stipend or something that at least gives them some dollars to afford food, crappy old car, clothes, phone, etc as even most poor college students have. Having these two extremes where they are too broke to afford fast food and inexpensive basics in life, or now possibly earning multi million per year contract both seem equally ridiculous.
I've never blamed an individual player. If a player, any individual single person has the chance to earn something, I'm all for them seizing whatever opportunity is in front of them. As long as they aren't hurting someone else, or breaking a law, go for it. Just as I'm for any individual to pay the fewest taxes their tax return legally allows, or other such rules our society has constructed. The issue isn't a player or group of players being blamed. Its the broad financial rules that apply to the situation; in this case all student athletes in all colleges everywhere. I seriously question if it make sense to have student athletes able to earn multi-millions of dollars. My initial reaction on reading these topics today is no, I am not in favor of that and would support rules that limited this. Earning under $100k per year I probably could care less about, I'm talking about those super rare case but where the dollars just get ridiculous. The escalation of dollars we might see where multiple college groups start overbidding each other by millions, and super wealthy donors involved. I guess it depends exactly how we see this play out, and exactly what any rule proposals looked like.
If we start seeing NIL agreements for seniors in high school that are 17; why wouldn't we start seeing this for underclassmen in high school too? Would we start seeing AAU middle schoolers getting paid?
Yeah, there needs to be some definite rules that don't discriminate from one institutional Men and women sport.
I thought the OP was referring to high schools attracting Middle School/Junior High kids to attend their high school by offering NIL deals. You know that's coming.
I don't see any way to limit what these athletes make, even when they are 17-19 years old. Nobody talked about limiting the incomes of Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus when they were under 21. Nobody talked about limiting the the incomes of Serena Williams or Martina Hingis or Monica Seles when they were teenagers. Or Dru Barrymore when she was a teenager. Nobody was saying Tiger Woods should have a limit on his endorsement income when he was under 21 if these athletes are entitled to profit from NIL, and it sure seems the SCOTUS and most states now say they do, I don't know what mechanism exists to say "no, that's too much; we're capping how much you can earn at 100K".
You keep resorting to completely unrelated realms. Those examples are all professionals, representing themselves, not an academic institution where much of their funding comes from fellow students.
I don't understand her comment. She was on a full ride at UofO. She could eat for free EVERYDAY at the school. UofO has one of the nicest ATHLETE ONLY facilities in the country she could have eaten at. Sure the school was making money off her and all the other athletes, but this kid wasn't roaming the streets begging for change.
what difference does it make where that educational funding comes from? NIL is the same thing as with 'professionals'....it's exactly "athletes representing themselves"...they are just younger. NIL has nothing to do with tuition or fellow students or athletic department budgets. Those are irrelevant. What the SCOTUS has said, and many states have confirmed thru legislation, is that athletes own their NIL...not the schools.
So what if her friends are going out? You never left the dorms or campus ever in college? Buying a $6 chipotle should be something every college student can afford. The NCAA banned her from working, made money off her, and basically holds her hostage to only eat on their "beautiful" campus. Sounds more like a prison. Yes it's a very nice prison, but still a prison.
It's a good argument you have. I don't have a problem with some of this in theory. It's when we start seeing these donors giving millions to kids, and then early high school kids, AAU kids. Yes there are child actors or artists, but record companies and movie studios are respectable organizations more above board. A lot of big money donors and shady people are going to be getting in on this. I'm not sure overall this is good for the majority of student athletes. Plus all the kids, most kids, who don't get checks. The women that likely don't get equal endorsement to men's sports. The innocent of watching young student athletes trying to prove themselves before they are a paid professional.
Although... Signing takes place when many seniors are still 17, so that could be an issue unless deals aren't signed until after commitments are made.
That's always been a weird argument for me. Working is the equivalent of an athletic scholarship: both are a means to pay for school and living expenses. Any non-athlete student basically either works or relies on money from parents and/or savings. I don't see why scholarship athletes should be any different in that respect. (I.e., just because they can't get money from work sources, because of the well documented abuses by donors, doesn't mean they're any less likely to have their own funding sources.) Unless we're making it a cultural argument, which is a slippery slope.
Yes, I think most student athletes on a full ride would have some family support or savings to pay for incidentals like a $6 chipotle. Unfortunately the ones who don't probably do come from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, or discriminated classes. All the more reason a small stipen would've been a good idea.
I'm not up to date on the rules, but as far as I know, there's always been more of a stipend in place than tends to get discussed. It varies by school and by sport, like most things.
I think the chances are that NIL will cause some significant erosion to the 'institutions' of NCAA sports. But it's been pretty obvious for a long time that the NCAA athletic framework has lots of dry rot and termites. Corruption and inconsistency with festering blind eyes everywhere. Where it's headed is anyone's guess, and football may be headed a different direction than other sports but I'm wondering: might it be that NIL could actually help NCAA basketball? The one-and-done rule takes a lot of talent out of the NCAA pool every year. The lure of a potential NBA contract, or two-way contract, or even G-League contract, is enough to have dozens of players leaving college each year after one season. Might it be that NIL opportunities will keep a lot of these players with their college teams longer? There will be lots of players who don't have a good chance at an NBA career who are stars for their college teams. If they can earn as much, or more income from NIL as they could from a G-League or 2-way contract, the motivation to leave college might be a lot less
Wow, the NCAA "banned....made money off of......hostage.....prison". Funny thing is, right now I'm hoping a D1 school will treat our daughter the EXACT same way. Interesting you look at getting a free education so negatively.
