- February 26th, 2018, 10:21 pm
#546590
It’s not about pro money. It’s about letting student-athletes retain the rights to their own name and likeness, and alllowing them to reap its value on the free market. Capitalism 101, and long long overdue. It is oppressive to restrict one’s earnings in that way.
I said if they “feel” oppressed, it makes them easy targets - for those who would take advantage of their feelings of oppression.
I don’t agree that you have to pay players. Full scholarship athletes receive tuition, room, board, books and most fees from the university. They also now receive COA stipends and greater meal allowances from universities. As far as the transaction between school and student-athlete, that’s enough.
What I’m saying is beyond what a student-athlete receives from the institution, they should be allowed to earn from other entities. If a local car dealership wants to pay the star bball player for a 30-second commercials or an appearance on a Saturday at the dealership to sign some autographs - why not? And you know what? If an agent wants to take a kid and his parents to dinner - or even sign him to a representation contract - why not? The NCAA takes away these rights from student-athletes, which every non-athlete at the institution possesses. It absolutely IS a form of oppression.
Let’s say that while you are working at your full-time job, another company comes to you and offers you $5,000 to do some after hours work for them. It the government tells you that you’re not allowed to take that job or that money - wouldn’t you feel oppressed? Oh, and let’s say the company you work for full-time sells the product you make for a $700M net annual profit, but only pays you $100,000. And they couldn’t do it without you. Wouldn’t you want a bigger piece of the pie?
This notion that someone above the student-athletes May restrict their earnings while the s-a assumes the overwhelming majority of the risk, goes against every element of a free market and capitalism.