One of the most reasoned rants around here.
If your coach’s compensation goes up by 10x+ over a few decades and yours stays flat, what would you think?
But the compensation for athletes has not been flat. The cost of school has gone up exponentially. The cost of books, dorm rooms, food have all gone up. Everything a scholarship covers is more expensive including the other benefits to players (marketing, physical training, nutritionists, medical support, tutoring, equipment, clothing, etc.). They have also added stipends and NIL. Your analogy is not only moot, since players are not employees, it is completely wrong.
I should become a coach?
NIL $ is being adulterated as a method for pay-for-play, which is against the rules and should result in loss of eligibility. The NCAA is not enforcing this because no one wants a Court ruling saying that the players should be compensated for their on-field efforts. Right now, NIL is all about off-field earning potential. Once there's a ruling about compensation for on-field performance, the players will be considered employees and the whole amateurism discussion ends. When that happens, athletic associations will be shunted from the universities and will become club organizations that license the name from the university. There is no way a university is going to take on the liability of these players as university employees (in my opinion).
Pay-for-play (beyond just scholarships) existed long before NIL, which is part of why I think that ruling about employment status is inevitable.
Not only that but comparing athletes' compensation to that of coaches is a false analogy. Rank-and-file employees have no entitlement to make as much as their CEO. Market forces and all that. What the supremes said is that everyone has the right to profit off their own NIL. That shouldn't be controversial, yet the NCAA and CFB's powers-that-be colluded for decades to prevent it. The "amateurism" model was well-intentioned in the sense that those charged with protecting competitive parity saw it as necessary to prevent pay-for-play abuses.
pay-for-play has never been legal in college athletics. Get caught cheating and get stripped of titles, records, eligibility, etc. Just because teams were cheating doesn't mean it's okay.
Only in America would we not play the players generating the billions of dollars. In the rest of the world the players are professionals.
Not to mention COA a few years back. It’s just a totally bogus argument. If they feel exploited, let them simply work like the rest of us, otherwise just shut up. Most of them have great work ethics and will be fine.
Your first paragraph is incomprehensible. Are you suggesting only employees can receive offers from third parties to use their likeness or image? I have no clue what your point is but it appears to not contradict anything I said, so who cares.
Why not let them earn their market value like all professions do. Calling college athletes amatures is a farce to begin with.
The market forces here are the (“cheating”) schools who have paid players to play for decades.
The schools generate the billions, not the players. You could take every professional caliber player out of college sports and it would have zero impact on revenues.
Depends on the definition of amateur.
And most AA’s are losing money. They need to factor that into their free market nonsense.
Huh? SMU cheating and getting the death penalty four decades ago is an example of thee market forces in college sports?
Not going to argue with you at length but if you took out every professional caliber player you would have the equivilant of womens college basketball vs mens college basketball