I’m not arguing against military members being paid more, please stay on topic.
Ok, I will say that military members should be able to profit off their likeness too! Oh wait, THEY ALREADY CAN!
You have not made a good argument why student athletes who risk their bodies and future careers to play sports and make billions of dollars for the NCAA and their respective schools should not be allowed to make money off their own likeness.
I had a full academic scholarship, I worked off campus as well and if for some reason a company wanted to pay for my likeness there was no reason they couldn’t. Olympic sport athletes also receive full scholarships and they are allowed to make money off their likeness. Kyler Murray received a 4.7 million baseball signing bonus and was still eligible to play football because it wasn’t “football money”. These rules are only in place for the revenue sports of football and basketball. How is this equal to other students and athletes?
You are arguing and confusing issues that aren’t relevant: payment from schools (this isn’t that) vs free market and title ix (this isn’t that) vs NCAA rules.
Also your “think of the other athletes!” argument is a fallacy. Other sports existed before billion dollar tv contracts and university apparel deals would continue to exist if this goes through.
What is your bias? Employed by ncaa or university? Have a daughter whose athletic scholarship is subsidized by football or basketball money? Some perverse satisfaction of white ncaa/college administration controlling black student athletes? Just don’t like change?
Read the entire thread. I agree with your position that kids should be able to make money off their likeness, you are wasting time and making false arguments. Move on.
If you wish to get rid of Title IX, do so, call your congressman and senators. Don't hold your breath, though.
You have confused the issues, I merely used your argument in a parallel situation. That you cannot understand this is on you.
As to your argument that apparel deals will continue as is, that is a fallacy. Nike has budgets, as does UA and others. If they have to pay athletes, that money comes from higher prices (you, me and other fans) or they take monies from another fund within the budget. Under your argument, Nike is now paying athletes, that money is most likely going to come from the apparel agreements. It certainly isn't coming from executive pay, employees' pay or shareholders. Nor are we fans likely to pay more for gear to pay players, the gear is already priced at maximum revenue or it would already have been increased. That leaves the apparel agreements. In Nike's world, the money gets to the kids one way or the other, so they may not care whether they pay kids directly and reduce apparel agreements or keep things as is.
Schools, on the other hand, have a vested interest in apparel money. Apparel money helps fund their ADs. Most ADs are losing money. Decreasing apparel revenue decreases the AD's budget. The AD's budget pays for ALL athletes, equally, based on Title IX. Also, the schools are the "shareholders" in the NCAA, that is the NCAA exists for their benefit. If the schools don't approve of rule changes, the rules don't change. Most schools will not vote against their interest. Schools have the option of defunding programs and many would have to follow this path if they lose revenue on top of their current losses (recall that most schools lose money on their ADs). The NCAA also requires that schools have 16 (if I recall) teams for D1 schools.
Title IX is the elephant in the room. As football offers 85 scholarships (D1/FBS level) and requires an equivalent number of womens sports scholarships (this is based on a ratio of male/female student population so it is not always equal; i.e. GATech, mostly male, can have proportionately more male scholarships). If sports are cut, less students get a free ride for athletics. If teams are cut too much, schools drop down in competitive level, too.
Regarding your scenario for academic scholars, athletes receive a stipend to offset earning capacity because sports and classes make up the bulk of their time. Doing this also helps ensure kids are not getting non-market pay for phony jobs.
As to your accusation that I have a bias, again, read everything: I AGREE WITH YOUR PERSPECTVE! There are seven pages of discussion and I have not opposed your perspective in principal, only in analysis of what is. My other posts on this topic have been consistent with this thread. I merely admit that I have no pull in Congress to change Title IX, I have no say in what the NCAA rules are, and I have no influence with the apparel companies. As to your numerous false and strawman questions of bias, the answer is categorically, "no". The only bias I have is the Orange tint through which I filter my college sports fandom.
Finally, you have not addressed why kids are not accountable for the actions. They sign to play for schools and agree to the free education. Most kids cannot pay for their own education, athletes can. They get a $65K free ride, plus gear, plus enhanced diet plan, plus no taxes, essentially, a $100K package in exchange for playing sports. The kids agree to the rules knowing what they can and cannot do. The kids are not forced to play for a colleges. The kids make the choice and they generally choose to do what is in their best interest. Kids are as much
Market principles are in play, as are governmental regulations (Title IX) and institutional interests. Can it be tweaked? Yes. Will it be tweaked by California? No. Federal law trumps state law. Is there an equilibrium point where all parties can be reasonably content? Yes. Are we at that point? No. The issue of paying kids for their likenesses is not a decision that can be made in a vacuum, all parties will have to be at the discussion table. The big money in college sports is relatively new. Large organizations (government, schools, NCAA) move slow but they do move. Change will come.
