Not exactly debate winning material there. Care to add anything to this thought? Like maybe how it would be good for college athletics?
Fine, let's do this. As always, college athletes > college athletics in importance, but even that said...
1, it would be good for college athletes, so it would be good for college athletics.
See, people always go straight to the defensive end that would rake it in or the flashy point guard that would get a great endorsement deal, but they forget about the exceptional Olympic sport athlete that could benefit. The top wrestlers/swimmers/gymnasts/tennis players could also have some monetary benefit from their athletic prime. I believe that female athletes in particular would benefit from being able to make endorsement money. Think of all of the businesses that would love to have an educated, positive female role model representing their brand at the local level. The defensive end or point guard is out if their reach, but the popular women's volleyball player or the local college's top men's rugby player is. And those kids have the chance at some real benefit for all of their hard work.
But let's talk about the defensive end or point guard. Sure, they'd benefit a lot (which again, I think is a good thing), but a circumstance could exist where their local celebrity as a college player is actually worth more for a time than going pro. Which would mean that player remains in college longer. Plus, if their family is in need, that pressure to turn pro is alleviated.
I mean, think of GMac. How much scratch could Gerard have made in Scranton during his Syracuse playing days? Answer - more than he made from the NBA. What heinous evil would have been done if he was Hawking Dunder Mifflin paper?
2, rich people are generally at least somewhat smart when it comes to what they do with their money. A million dollars for a player's autograph is a pretty terrible investment. Especially when rosters have a limited size. So sure, they'd pay some of these guys well, but they'd expect a return on that, and they aren't getting it from the 13th guy on the bench or the backup nose tackle. You might even see talent be less concentrated than it is now, because the athlete's choice and preferences matter too. Alabama represents the best path to the NFL from college football. But suppose a player is offered $50k a year in endorsements to go to Alabama and compete for playing time... or they can take $100k a year in endorsements to be one of the top players at Tulane. Sure, some schools will pony up more... but that happens now.
3, people point to the boosters paying off Saban's house as evidence against the player's being able to benefit monetarily from their popularity. I think that's backwards. Saban, pardon my French, is a grown ass man that is able to sign contracts for whatever he wants whenever he wants to make money off of who he is. He doesn't sacrifice his physical self on Saturdays in the name of entertainment. He isn't held to any academic standards while having considerable demands on his time due to his athletic scholarship. If he blows out a knee, it doesn't change some of his professional options.
See, our society values athletic entertainment. If a kid is so exceptional that people will part with their money to see them perform live, and TV networks will shell out coin to broadcast their competitions, that kid doesn't necessarily deserve a cut because a competitive platform does matter, but restricting them from benefitting from who they are is despicable. This isn't just an issue for athlete's either. As the world becomes increasingly digital, identity matters more and more. I believe the time will come when infringement on identity will be viewed as a human rights issue (there's way more to this in my head, but just go with it). The fact that the system transfers the money benefit of the athlete's identity to the NCAA is absolute crap, and it becomes even more shameful and ludicrous when instead Saban the clown, who is completely capable of providing for himself, gets people to pay off his house because of who he is, and his players can't get the same benefit. You don't mean to tell me that that booster money couldn't have made a bigger impact had it covered rent or some house payments for the family's of some of Alabama's players?
Again, competitive balance (what a crock) and what's "best" for college athletics take a backseat to how unduly disadvantaged student-athletes are. Fix that problem. That's the right thing to do. If Syracuse (or any other school without supposedly unlimited booster money) has to adapt in the meantime for the greater good, so be it.
And let me close with this, so we don't forget about the regular student that isn't an athlete... if the day comes that schools start paying players directly, schools that do not have an athletics program will FLOURISH. Because that student's choice will come down to "pick the school with the great sports, and ohbytheway a bunch of my tuition that I'm paying via student loans goes straight to those athletes so I can watch them play sports" vs "pick the school where the tuition I pay and debt I incur is a direct investment in my own future." Maybe some meatheads here would say "her dur sports!" But that will prove to not be the smart play over time.
Allowing student-athletes to benefit from their own name and likeness is the best answer. It is. The sooner everybody comes around to this, the better.
