Er, yes? Students above the age of employment can work at their school, I had friends who did that. And even for students below the age of employment, exemptions can and are made for hardships. Highschools can literally pay their students, and they are still students none the less.
No one is arguing that players don’t offer value to a college. They wouldn’t be playing if they didn’t. But you are cherry picking here. These packages you are talking about don’t include all college athletes.Consider this -- if these things aren't jobs with value or worth, then why do major colleges grant their players enormous insurance packages? The entire reason they do so is because the know there is an enormous amount of worth in the value of these players. You can actually put a dollar amount on how much a college athlete is worth, individually, because colleges do it for every single player.
So you're arguing that people whom you admit add value to a program shouldn't be compensated for their contribution, and your argument is that doing so is "ethically wrong" and "isn't fair"?
You again are confusing a job with an extra-curricular activity. I know you can pay students who are in school, I hire student workers in the summer every single year at my school. I’m not paying them to play baseball, I’m paying them to clean an iPad.Er, yes? Students above the age of employment can work at their school, I had friends who did that. And even for students below the age of employment, exemptions can and are made for hardships. Highschools can literally pay their students, and they are still students none the less.
Students who maintain high GPA’s also add value to a college. Should they be paid?
You accept his premise that players can offer a value (in a dollar amount) but then want to argue marginal popper qualifications about “not all players”. I think you’re just arguing for argument sake here.
The only reason highschools don't pay their football players, is because it violates NFHS (and in Texas, UIL) rules, which are set in accordance with NCAA regulations, i.e. if they pay their players, they lock them out of being able to go to college. None of this is law, these are all regulatory guidelines by non-governmental agencies.
I didn’t say anything about a dollar amount. Value doesn’t always equate to money.
You replied to this:
So a student isn’t paying? High GPA’s aren’t keeping the value of prestige
thats not what I replied to with my value comment either.
Regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge that value in this case is quite literally money, thems the facts. We're talking about money, the value college athletes bring to the table is literally shitloads of cash. Their compensation they are requesting is coming directly from their value, i.e. money.
Not to mention the sports scholarships that can be revoked on a serious injury the athlete might suffer playing.
yes. and not just in direct money for sales from tickets, but all the additional apparel sales around the world, increases in alumni donations, and increases in student applications which allows the college to be more selective and increase their rankings and prestige over time.
Nah. I do think colleges themselves shouldn't be the ones to pay athletes, BUT I do think athletes should be able to take endorsements, money from boosters, and in general get all the free shit they can get. The fact that college athletes can't profit off of their own likeness is fucking asinine in a country that's all about capitalism and getting paid.
Yes, how strange that Laura Ingraham, of all people, would for some reason argue that black people should exist only to make money for white people
racists are always caught between "blacks should do for themselves" arguments but when black people actually do something for ourselves, racists become really uncomfortable (i.e. the reactions to Peele saying he wouldn't cast a white guy in his movies) or explosively violent(i.e. Greenwood, Oklahoma, Rosewood, Florida, etc)