01-17-2016, 11:08 PM
(01-16-2016, 08:35 PM)Mick link Wrote:http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/spo...ingle.html
This was written by OSKR partner Andy Schwarz in 2014. He's an expert witness who concentrates on antitrust and class actions across a wide variety of industries, including sports. In it, he debunks four myths as to why college athletes should not be paid.
And here's a 2014 article on why college sports should be unionized. I know that ship has partially sailed. Pulled anchor at least.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/m..._save.html
Hard to disagree with the legalisms, but when I juxtapose adults' dry arguments with the wet pictures (on other threads here) of 17-19 year old members of the recruiting class of 2016, I wonder which system is "right" (i.e. best for the kids)? Is it an MLB or FIFA model where kids sign up to play for money for a team in their teens (VERY early teens for FIFA), or is it a NCAA model which pretends that all athletes are students and vice versa, but also provides serious "in loco parentis" standards for these man/women children who not only play for our universities but also learn trades or professions in the process?
And, if we pay student/athletes at the college level, are payments for HS student (or even JHS/MS) athletes far behind?
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
