This is not the market deciding, this is still all the schools colluding together to not pay their workforce, just being slightly less assholes if those kids make money from a side gig (and think of the nerves of the NCAA to even demand that they don't do that).I think endorsements might be the fairest way to have student athletes get paid. Obviously lacrosse or some shit is never going to bring in money so it doesn't make sense to pay them. But, it would be unfair if schools paid football or basketball players and not anyone else. Endorsements? The market decides and pays the best players. Hell even a Lacrosse player could get payed if they are behind a success story or some shit.
That would be a lot more difficult as someone would then need to determine which non revenue sports would need to be eliminated as the football and basketball money would be used to pay athletes instead of funding other sports.
Would you like to tell the women's volleyball team they need to disband because the school needs to pay the defensive linemen?
Practice, meetings, and flights aren't work?Paying a football player minimum wage is akin to paying them nothing. They get a larger stipend than that already. (Few hundred a month)
Especially when you consider a football player technically only works for 3-4 hours a week.
Maybe he's competing for terrible take of the year, you don't know!
It depends on the school. X school may not have a good football team but they have the top girls soccer team in the country. So then that school donors would be paying girls soccer players etc or their rival donors could give endorsements to take the players away etcI think endorsements might be the fairest way to have student athletes get paid. Obviously lacrosse or some shit is never going to bring in money so it doesn't make sense to pay them. But, it would be unfair if schools paid football or basketball players and not anyone else. Endorsements? The market decides and pays the best players. Hell even a Lacrosse player could get payed if they are behind a success story or some shit.
If the school stopped colluding to suppress athletes wages, many of them will make way way more than minimum wage.Paying a football player minimum wage is akin to paying them nothing. They get a larger stipend than that already. (Few hundred a month)
Especially when you consider a football player technically only works for 3-4 hours a week.
If the school stopped colluding to suppress athletes wages, many of them will make way way more than minimum wage.
Minimum wage is just the floor it should be illegal to pay them below.
Also, being a college football player is a full time job.
Title IX does not prevent schools from paying athletes. It's perfectly legal to pay them (in fact, I am unsure how it is legal to not pay them, but that's a different story).Major schools would love to be able to pay top football and basketball players. Why do you think there so many recruiting violations, fake jobs for blue chip families, ect. They just can't legally afford to do it because of title 9.
Title IX does not prevent schools from paying athletes. It's perfectly legal to pay them (in fact, I am unsure how it is legal to not pay them, but that's a different story).
The schools literally colluded together and said no one will play any school that pay their aesthetes.
If USC decided to start paying paying their football team tomorrow, the feds are not gonna come and arrest the AD or anything. But the NCAA will sanction them out of competition.
It's collusion to suppress wages, plain and simple, and if all the schools stopped doing it (or let's be real, be made to stop doing ti) a lot of of those athletes are gonna get paid a whole lot of money.
Title IX does not require pay equality.There's a reason why I used the term legally afford.
Major schools can pay their revenue generating players heck many try to do it secretly. That same USC you mention secretly tried to pay their top players got caught and penalized and lost a national championship because of it.
Most though can't afford to pay all their student athletes what top football players are worth. Which title 9 would require.
Title IX does not require pay equality.
Duke doesn't pay Joanne McCallie. the same salary as Coach K.
You can argue that it should, but it's not how the government and the courts interpret it.
Seriously, they just don't want to play their workforce because they're greedy assholes.
Most though can't afford to pay all their student athletes what top football players are worth. Which title 9 would require.
Title 9 specifically states all athlete regardless of gender have the have the same benefits.
Fuck the NCAA and their FAQs, this is the text of Title IX -Title 9 specifically states all athlete regardless of gender have the have the same benefits.
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
It is my understanding that collegiate athletics generates profit and they should be paid out of that profit. Is there something I'm missing here?
How do you feel about coaches being pads millions while professors get a fraction?I think endorsements might be the fairest way to have student athletes get paid. Obviously lacrosse or some shit is never going to bring in money so it doesn't make sense to pay them. But, it would be unfair if schools paid football or basketball players and not anyone else. Endorsements? The market decides and pays the best players. Hell even a Lacrosse player could get payed if they are behind a success story or some shit.
Today maybe. But what when the top talents decide to go to Californian teams because they can make money while in college. It can cause a big shift in teams.Eh, losing the California schools at least from a football perspective would barely register.
Today maybe. But what when the top talents decide to go to Californian teams because they can make money while in college. It can cause a big shift in teams.
NCAA kicking them out would jumpstart the end of the NCAA. Colleges don't need the NCAA and the power 5 could easily create their own thing. They could bowl ban Californian teams I guess but you will still get plenty of exposure/endorsements without that.What money are they going to make if the NCAA kicks them out (not saying they could or would), just hypothetically speaking. What kind of endorsements are you going to get if you are not playing on a new year's bowl game?
We just need to enforce the rules we already have on the books.Unpaid internships, which also heavily rely on college students to fill, need to be changed as well. Too many companies take advantage of unpaid labor from college students, without even offering them jobs when they're finished.
wasnt he specifically the highest paid employee in all of Alabama?Good, the NCAA can piss off
This should show you everything that's wrong with the NCAA. For anyone who doesn't know, that's Nick Saban, head coach of Alabama's football team. They've been the most successful college football team for at least the last decade. He's made an assload of money during his time as coach. If a player did this exact same ad, they would lost their eligibility.
wasnt he specifically the highest paid employee in all of Alabama?
Athletes already get paid big money. They get a free education, living space, food, suits, shoes...... the list goes on and on. The real problem is the sport is making millions and its only going to coaches and chairmen and not being put back into the school. So many people could go to college for free if all the money being made was put back into the school.
To be fair Nick Saban has long been an advocate for players' rights and compensation for play.But what will happen to the sanctity of college sports if they are allowed to make money on endorsements?
Should athletes be paid out from the athletic department on a level scale or based on the profit generated from each individual sport?It is my understanding that collegiate athletics generates profit and they should be paid out of that profit. Is there something I'm missing here?
Profit generated per sport imo.Should athletes be paid out from the athletic department on a level scale or based on the profit generated from each individual sport?
They can appeal to the generosity of their athletes like how they panhandle their alumni for donations.Men's football players / basketball players would make far more than Women's Lacrosse or Men's Wrestling. Now if there is a need to make up for funding that athletics typically provide, unprofitable sports may get cut, is the argument.
Wait... Who are you and what have you done with samoyed?Profit generated per sport imo.
They can appeal to the generosity of their athletes like how they panhandle their alumni for donations.
Do schools still strip injured athletes of their scholarships? I follow my college football team and every year there are a few that get disqualified by team doctors and prematurely end their career but they always retain their scholarship as a Medically DQed athlete that stays on scholly but doesn't count against the scholarship limit. Hell they've been giving full scholarships to high school recruits that committed but got hurt and medically DQed before they got to campus.And then you get injured, lose your scholarship, and the school throws you aside like so much refuse. You of course can't hold a real job for spending money or pursue other cultured interests during the school year because of the time and travel commitment. Or more commonly, you squeeze through with a C- average taking joke level classes and have no real marketable skills or savings when you don't win the lottery of making it pro.
I don't hate profit, I just hate it when profit isn't going to laborers.
Do schools still strip injured athletes of their scholarships? I follow my college football team and every year there are a few that get disqualified by team doctors and prematurely end their career but they always retain their scholarship as a Medically DQed athlete that stays on scholly but doesn't count against the scholarship limit. Hell they've been giving full scholarships to high school recruits that committed but got hurt and medically DQed before they got to campus.
But I'm not sure how widespread or common this is. I'd assume most of the FBS schools do it.
There is also no provision in the Division I Manual to prohibit a coach from revoking a scholarship the year after a recruit gets hurt. For those from poor families and without coverage through a parent, this means that a young man or young woman can be enlisted on the promise of an education, get injured on the field, and lose his or her only source of medical insurance precisely when he or she needs it most. "There is no doubt there are horror stories out there about schools terminating scholarships," says Warren Zola, assistant dean for graduate programs in the Carroll School of Management at Boston College and a sports business expert. "It comes down to the ethos of particular schools."
Under N.C.A.A. rules, players can still lose their scholarships after being hurt, often pay for their own insurance and are generally responsible for long-term health care for injuries sustained on the playing field. Huma's goal is to ensure that current and former athletes never pay out of pocket for sports injuries.
It's a moot point. If an athlete signs a NIL promotional deal he or she is not eligible to play by NCAA rules which tanks their NIL value.
The NCAA will have to heavily reconsider this if prime athletes start flocking to California schools and they threaten to abandon the NCAA.
If top high school athletes go to CA college and sign a NIL promotional agreement then they are ineligible to play under NCAA competition. So while that diluted talent, the the NCAA doesn't care. That said, they probably dread losing the CA TV market which might be a massive blow financially. So presumably they will challenge the constitutionality of this law.