No, they are not amateurs Please read the decision and the reasons they were found to not be amateurs.
The fact that you and the self-interested assholes at the NCAA keep saying this does not make it true.
This was, as Muffin says, precisely the heart of the NLRB’s decision. The fact that you continue to willfully ignore the substance of the specific ruling that currently controls this case does you little credit.
If every employer in your field gets together and decides to collude to limit your compensation and decree that you are an amateur, does that make you an amateur?
If that’s what they bargain for, then fine. Beyond that, it doesn’t matter what your opinion is. The point is that they should be allowed to bargain for it and the schools should not be allowed to collude to set any uniform unilateral cap on compensation.
Again, college is supposed to be for getting people ready to become productive members of society. If players, who otherwise wouldn’t have any business on a college campus, want to piss that opportunity away, knock themselves out. Just don’t come crying to me when your league forces you to pretend to go to class until you can end the charade.
.Sorry if I seem to lack sympathy for these guys, and it’s all guys, but I don’t.
Again, it’s not the players who are making these decisions. It’s the university. If, knowing that, you still don’t have sympathy for the players then you need to do some hard self-inspection.
The fact that you keep characterizing the situation in these terms means there is something wrong with your willingness to open your eyes and look at the facts of the situation rather than base them on your own wishful thinking.
In any case, it is irrelevant what college is supposed to be for and it is irrelevant whom you personally do or don’t have sympathy for. Those things are irrelevant. The students are being treated as employees and so they should have the same rights as any employee. And the schools are illegally colluding to limit their compensation so they should be stopped. Period.
Okay, ban all intersholastic sports then. Problem solved, everyone you seem to care about happy.
You should take a university course based on Introduction to Logic by Irvng M. Copi and, as previously suggested, read the decision, for there is no rational connection between the issue of what constitutes employment and your proposal to ban all varsity sports.
Yes, etv78, there is a great deal to be said for moving interscholastic and intercollegiate sports to clubs (conversely there is a benefit to retaining physical education and intramural sports to help prevent students from becoming couch potatoes).
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there He sounds like a guy who knows he’s about to get fucked, and not in a good way.
I love how he keeps saying that the NCAA, etc. aren’t interested in converting the students to employees… they already are employees. That’s what the ruling said, and I doubt it’s going to be overturned. It’s like he thinks the words he uses have magic powers or something.
When the ruling is upheld, and/or when O’Bannon wins his case, he knows that the NCAA as it exists today (an exploitative cash machine, riding high on the backs of disadvantaged youths) is over.
He sounded demented to me because of that, too. As if he was rambling through what seemed to make sense in his head but as it came out of his mouth he realized it wasn’t quite as grokkable as he had planned.
Just wanted to say that I love this book!
And what exactly is that a solution for? It seems like nothing more than a petulant hissy-fit. If things can’t be the way I want them too, I’m taking my ball and going home?
The poor man has to do his job and right now his job is to:
- Publicly make the best case possible for his organizations decisions, and
- Work behind the scenes as hard as possible to minimize the damage to the NCAA by this ruling
One thing about being the boss is that you always have to confidently stay on message regardless of how clueless/tone deaf you might sound. If this guy ever said, “I can see your point, but…” it’s all over. He’ll be in courtrooms for the next 10 years being asked “When you said on the Dan Patrick show that ‘I can see your point’… what did you mean?”
Another issue: he did not sound as if he believed what he was saying even as he was saying it, plus we could hear his growing realization that he was getting pwned* by Dan Patrick, the best interviewer in sports bar none. When it culminated in “you can answer that yourself”, for the listener it was all over. A knockout blow.
His biggest problem is that he has no authority over the member schools budgets needed to make the sort of financial changes required to start “paying” athletes, and the NCAA isn’t equipped to handle payroll.
One solution: You could make the NCAA a PEO like Insperity or Staffing Solutions. 
- (going 2004 old school here. I’m feelin’ it.)
Really, if the schools decide that enforcement of their massive rule book governing the limits of how they procure and treat their athletes is no longer necessary, then the NCAA’s role is reduced to that of overseeing the logistics of national tournaments/championships. Chances are that the head of an organization charged with that responsibility doesn’t command a $2 million annual salary.
When one uploads a photo to Facebook, you give them the right to use the image in whatever way they see fit, and most people allow it because they know there is no financial gain to be made from those over-exposed vacation shots.
However, they still own their own face. There is no “supposition” about it, just like one “owns” their arms and legs, they also “own” their face.
I can stop uploading pictures to FB if I perceive the future value of my image to be >$0 and I don’t want to give them control of them, etc. I can negotiate with Nike, Coca-Cola, Electronic Arts, etc to put my face anywhere, and be paid an appropriate amount*, **.
But not if I were going to school as an athlete. In that instance, we actually have people making arguments that begin with the phrase “suppose an athlete does own the rights to his own face.”
If they don’t own their face… do they own their arms? How about their hair? What other parts of their body do they not own?
- In my case, they would charge me for wasting their time.
** As defined within the collective bargaining agreement of the league that I join.
This was my original argument years ago as to why the NCAA is designed to place college athletes, especially male football and basketball players, in a serf-lord relationship. Students can work for their long-term employer and earn a living while they are still students - for example, you can take management classes while still working at Wendy’s as a manager - but somehow, not if your next employer is the NY Giants.
In that case, you’re an amateur and you are not allowed to be paid for what you are training, and if others make billions off you… well, uh, you still can’t be paid like your friend who is pulling in $500/week from his Wendy’s job.
Love your choice of words. 
1.6 a year poor.
Well, obviously that’s not ideal, and i’m sure that there would be reasonable and equitable ways to ensure this didn’t happen. But i doubt it would be a problem.
Athletes who are good enough for top-division football and basketball are, for the most part, kids who have been practicing their whole lives to play college ball. This is what they live for, and for many of them, it’s the only reason for them to be in college in the first place.
In many cases, despite the huge odds stacked against them, these guys truly believe that they have a shot at the pros, and if you ask them whether they’d rather be playing or studying, somewhere around 98 percent of them (and i’m being conservative here) are NOT going to choose the classroom. I think it’s incredibly unlikely that athletes like this would sign on to a team with the nefarious intention of giving up after one practice session just so they can get a free education and some health insurance.
Well, it’s a thankless task, defending the indefensible. I’d like to be well compensated if this were in my job description:
*Must maintain credibility and belief in arguing that in a capitalist society, a feudal system must be maintained that allows 18-22 year-old athletes to be exploited for the benefit of their masters, er, Lords, er, Universities without recompense.
Must be able to resist obvious parallels to slavery and indentured servitude by saying “they can quit school whenever they want” while ignoring the fact that the system is set up so that they are unemployable unless they go to a participating university.
Do not admit that there is anything “colluding” about meeting with Adam Silver (commissioner of the NBA) about his plan to raise the minimum NBA hiring age to 20 or 21. Like you did last week*.
If you meet Sergey Brin at any point, ignore the dichotomy of his starting Google while a student at a NCAA school and becoming a billionaire in the process, while leading an organization that prevents Johnny Manziel, a student at another NCAA school, from signing t-shirts at $25 a pop. *
And so on, and so on…
- NBA's Adam Silver wants NCAA input on higher age limit (If you’re not an “employer”, why are you meeting with “employers” to discuss “employment policies”?)
Just an FYI in case folks haven’t been following the Northwestern stuff in the press: the players’ union vote is scheduled for tomorrow (April 25), and according to the New York Times, the university has been pushing very hard for the players to vote no.
I’ve been wondering what’s to stop universities for pressuring athletes not to form unions in much the same way employers do: “Unionize and we’ll fine SOME reason why you will NEVER play for our team, buddy …”