That’s irrelevant. If the non-collusive model turns out to be unworkable, so be it. Profitable injustice doesn’t justify injustice. People who spend their money on college athletics now will still have that money to spend on some other sector and the economy will benefit.
Is the issue an unequal distribution of the revenue: OK - so who is collecting all of the money? If the school gets it, it is going towards other programs and towards the team and its coaches. If you take away from the school’s revenue, you will get some more cash in the hands of players, but you will kill a lot of other sports.
Or are we arguing that there is MORE money that could be earned if we would just let them earn it?
No, the issue is collusion by a cartel to prevent individuals from negotiating for compensation and to prevent competition regarding compensation among members of that cartel. I don’t know how distribution would work out in the absence of such collusion, but whatever it is will be fairer than the current situation.
If that’s the case, then that’s fine. Athletes should not be subject to artificial maintenance of a collusive system simply because someone else benefits from it, in particular the exploitation of individuals athletes’ names, images, an identities long after they’ve stopped playing collegiate sports.
It’s relevant because if the non-collusive model turn out to be unworkable, than there was no injustice in the first place. Everybody was getting a good deal and you destroyed it on a whim, based on some perceived injustice.
I see. So if the coal and steel industries had collapsed after institution of employment and compensation laws, you would agree that it was proof that making people work from sunup to sundown in company towns where they could never make enough money to get out of debt and were likely to die from hazardous job conditions was not unjust in the first place? If the cotton industry had collapsed after the elimination of slavery, you would agree that it was proof that there was no injustice in the first place?
Well if those people went from having a place to live and food on the table, to homeless and starving to death, it would be hard to claim you did them any good.
Good news: we won you an 8 hour workday and a 25 cent raise
Bad news: It bankrupt the industry, you’re all fired, homeless and destitute, with no other options.
For all of you complaining about the restrictions on scholarship athletes, then why advise the high-school senior to not give in to the abuse of the NCAA system and refuse to go to college and then go pro at the first opportunity.
Because if he doesn’t give in to the NCAA system, he won’t be able to turn pro. At least, not if he plays football.
I mean, I “turned pro” by declaring for the NFL draft when I was 22, but I didn’t play college football and no agents called.
I didn’t play high school football at all, for that matter. But hey, it made everyone at the party laugh.
That issue is between the NFL and the NFLPA (players association). The NCAA has nothing to do with that. They can run their business how they see fit.
Should Universities stop pretending to be schools and just admit they are minor league sports franchises? It would be better to have true minor league sports that can bring in anyone they want and pay them anything they wish.
If they’re going to be running what is essentially a minor league system, then, yes, that’s exactly what they should do.
True. But the reason they do that is because NCAA football benefits the NFL by generating ready-made stars.
I guess I still fail to see the point.
If a student goes to the NCAA, they get a scholarship and a free college education if they don’t turn pro. If a student is pro calibre, they treat the NCAA like a minor league and make millions of dollars. So two questions:
- If the system is so unfair and the student wants to make a stand, why can’t they just forgo the NCAA? (Oh wait! They can.)
- I’ve worked for companies making millions yet earning a pittance. What’s the difference?