They already were paid. The idea was that the college would take a chance and offer you 4 years of education and you would agree to that bargain and develop over 4 years. The benefit for the player is obvious- gain maturity, a college education, a chance in a lifetime opportunity to play before crowds and win games for the university you chose. This idea that money is everything in our choices is a really really bad one. I personally think that a kid going through 4 years of having to develop and stick with something is likely better statistically for the kids than making $100k a year at age 19 for being able to run and jump with no long term commitment to team or university.
I understand that....but the guy/company that's paying him is a Miami booster. If he transfers, does that $$$ get refunded???? Just messed up
That part I really don't know, but also am curious on that.
I don't necessarily disagree with the bolded, but the problem is taking away someone's right to earn whatever cash they are worth. That's the sticking point. Like it or not, kids should have this option.
In college you are....well were.... a volunteer and you sign off on what you get for being that volunteer and what your responsibilities are.
Because universities are supposed to be about an education and sports are supposed to be a way for those students to participate in extracurricular activities. The sports business as we know it today has absolutely no place mixed up with educational institutions.
See my reply to another above.
The only argument is that college athletics is amateur, not professional.
NFL is even more restrictive.
I offered a similar assessment about a week ago. The wild west won't last long as it will cause the whole enchilada to collapse.
There is another legal issue that will arise. How can public universities justify providing public facilities -- arenas, training and practice areas, expensive travel, hotels, meals, uniforms -- to professional athletes?
They don't need to because that is a supplement to his primary income from the Packers.
Thanks for bringing up the NBA requirement for one year of college. That rule is simply ludicrous on so many counts. I am surprised that this hasn't been challenged in court. If I am a high school student and can play in the league, I should be able to do so as long as I meet my state's requirements for attending school.
Primary/secondary/tertiary is really irrelevant here. And even if schools do end up paying kids, it wouldn't exceed what some of these top NIL deals are, making those still the "primary" income, to use your words.
I think the NBA just says you have to be 19? I don't know necessarily that you had to have gone to college for a year.
Well said... universities, or truly the athletic departments of universities, spend a fortune on these costs. The NIL as currently structured makes these investments extremely risky if some capricious and unscrupulous outside actor can suddenly poach a student athlete.
As much as I agree with you philosophically, I think that is easily refuted. The University professors can write books, make speeches or whatever, capitalizing on their job at the U. They use the facilities. An artist in art classes could go sell their art, etc. I think legally it can be done. Everything about it is ruinous though.
Maybe. We don't know though.
If tied to age, then that is my bad. Why can't a student athlete jump immediately to the NBA on their 19th birthday? I know... I know... draft rules... blah, blah, blah. It seems like this should follow the NHL model where teams can pick up college students mid year whether they hold their rights or as a 'free agent.'
I'll fully admit that I do not have the legal knowledge to speak confidently on this, but how can they justifiably pass a law that says "college athletes can't be paid more than $100K", or whatever figure they choose. Doesn't make sense to me, but again I am open to being proven wrong.
They have the option -- pro sports. College athletics is a different option.
Restraint of trade.
Not only risky but illegal. Only a matter of time before some public university will be sued on that point.
See your point but don't think the correlation is that strong. Art students can sell their work. Students can also play minor league basketball and be paid. But the art student is not on the university art team, traveling at university expense and being paid whether her art is good or not.
The age limit is collectively bargained between the Owners and their Union.