LMAO, really? As if boosters (who are often scrupulous and delusional to begin with) could ever be expected to be ethical in the first place.
I mentioned it in the basketball specific thread, but the NIL could NEVER work. There was a reason the NCAA strictly forbid paying players as they always knew boosters would circumvent rules and take advantage of any openings. Allowing players to be employed off campus would simply invite boosters to hire athletes for BS jobs, and overpay for any work they MIGHT have done. These âNILâ deals? They arenât being paid for âimage and likenessâ, they are straight up getting paid to choose a college.
Ed Oâbannonâs initial case should have been thrown out as he only filed his case once he was flat ass broke. He was only looking for a way to enrich himself despite not only (likely) not having an actual issue with the video game, but clearly benefitting from the exposure created for the NCAA. But once they did hear the case, they created a contradiction in making it about money the NCAA âwas making off the backs of kidsâ. If that were the case, which it actually was, the answer was to force the NCAA or, more specifically, the schools, coaches, and leagues themselves, to create limit the profitability and greed by those entities and individuals. That ruling, and the BS lawsuits that following, paved the way to what we are seeing today. Sadly, the âanswersâ to those issues was never paying the players. Why? Now you are COMPLETELY getting way from college athletics and making these âproâ teams. And if they are pro teams, why should schools even have their names on them? Why should players even go to school. The entirety of college athletics starts to fall apart.
Whatâs lost in all of this, and what has been in those arguments, is that the players benefit GREATLY from the exposure college sports creates. Without the fanfare, tournament and exposure, would a player like Bennet Stirtz, EVER be on the NBA radar? Nobody is preventing players from going pro, which completely destroys the ridiculous anti-trust arguments and rulings. The NCAA/college sports structure is no more prohibitive than the MLB, NBA, or NFL are. And the idea of amateur athletics exists and is accepted at the high school level. So, is it just about players being adults? If not, then why are high schools allowed to have teams? Why arenât those players paid? We all know the answer to those questions.
The reality is college players should never be paid. Why? There is no end to that problem as what determines who gets paid and by how much? If itâs based on âworthâ and âdemandâ, is it discriminatory that womenâs athletes wonât get paid as much? Also, when the pressures to remain competitive inevitably divert more and more dollars away from non-revenue sports, what happens to those sports and athletes? When those get dropped, doesnât that create more discriminatory arguments? It simply doesnât work.
The sad part is this was all predictable. Boosters simply âwant to winâ and are showing they will do so at all costs. Now more than ever the players are being used as pawns by the boosters, agents, and the teams they play for. The ultimately irony? The very thing that made college ahletics popularâŠathletes that played for a school, played for 2-4 years, and allowed fans to develop affinities is jeopardized. Now, what is the difference between college and professional athletics? And are fans really okay with this model? I think viewership, should things remain as they are, will begin a steady decline, thus decreasing value, viewership, and ironically the money that made it all possible.