 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by itsbigmike |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuition is excessive for college, there is no doubt about that. I know that first hand, as well. However, the fact that they are getting an athletic scholarship doesn't mean that they don't also deserve compensation for people using their likeness in video games. Would it be miniscule? Yeah, probably. However, it's still money that they deserve. Companies simply cannot use you for something like a video game without your consent. I feel the same way when schools sell the starting quarterback's jersey in their book stores, but they don't put a name on it, thus skirting the issue that they're continuing to profit directly on the back of their players without having to pay them for it.
Athletes aren't by definition an employee, but kids on Power 5 teams are very, very valuable to the universities. College football, and to a much lesser extent, college basketball, help pay for the entire athletic budget and then some for schools. Even a school like Western Michigan would not be able to have other sports without their football program bringing in revenue -- even if it's still not enough to cover the athletic budget -- and the players should be compensated for that, too, above and beyond the scholarship to school.
This also says nothing of the fact that many athletes are pushed into easy classes that don't really prepare them for anything after college, should professional sports not work out. We need only look at UNC for that sort of thing, but it goes on at schools both large and small. Or the kids who have injuries that leave them unable to perform on the field, costing them their scholarships. Or the kids that can't eat because the amateur status doesn't allow them to make enough money to pay for meals -- as Kemba Walker described when he was still playing basketball for the University of Connecticut.
Yes, scholarships are fantastic for getting kids out of the inner-city and they're also fantastic for kids whose families could feasibly afford their kid's tuitions. But to just want to stop the compensation there, when these universities are pulling in millions upon millions of dollars -- or in the case of the NCAA, billions -- to me feels short-sighted . Especially when athletic directors are giving themselves raises on top of raises, it feels unfair for the kids that are actually, you know, sacrificing their physical well being in both the immediate and distant future. Whether people want to consider them employees or not, they bring value to their schools beyond their scholarship costs.
And, I admit, figuring out what that value would be on a per-player basis is a nightmare to try to suss out. Obviously some players are worth more than others, some schools worth more than others, and some sports worth more than others. I don't have all the answers on that. Still, I'd rather they try to figure that out, instead of just saying that it's too hard to figure out and then throwing up their hands and asserting that the current system is the most fair. I disagree with that notion.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
In principle, I agree with this. I think that it's clear and obvious that most student-athletes receive, through scholarships, much less than they are "worth" if their value was monetized. As I said before, I am all for student-athletes getting more benefits, but it's the methodology that O'Bannon proposes which I disagree with.
I do not think that student-athletes should be paid directly for playing collegiate sports. It is not a profession at this level, and the second salary begins to creep its head into college athletics, schools who are not on the same fiscal playing field as the "big boys" will slowly fade into obscurity thereby creating an even greater monopoly among the richest schools. I think that the ramifications of such a monopoly would be terrible for everyone involved as these poorer schools would be forced to drop certain sports thus creating less opportunities for student-athletes to attend school.
However, I do believe that student-athletes should be afforded the right to profit independently off of their own likeness. This seems to be a self-explanatory right that the NCAA has taken away from student-athletes. These students are not employees of the NCAA, therefore, they should be able to earn income any way shape or form that they want to as long is it is within the parameters of the law. All of these NCAA restrictions as to what jobs student-athletes are and are not allowed to hold are absolutely ludicrous. The NCAA does not own these students and they do not employ them. If NCAA athletes in the Olympics can profit off of their likeness, then all student-athletes should be able to do the same. I think that, if this were allowed, then the cries for the NCAA to pay the players would quiet down, and the players would be able to earn some extra money.
If the players want money from the NCAA directly, they should get it in the form of stipends which supplement additional meals, expenses, and maybe the occasional gift. I think it's playing with fire if the NCAA or the schools pay the students directly. I don't think people realize how the landscape of collegiate education as a whole would be changed if student-athletes become employees for the NCAA.
Also, as to the point of injuries derailing scholarships, the NCAA recently established a rule which mandates that all scholarships must be honored despite injury or poor performance. I agree with you on the easy classes however; emphasis on education is a whole different conversation though.