[ColoradoTree]

You can get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by a government due to swimming success.  But if you get paid endorsement money by private companies due to swimming success? That sin is unforgivable. 

I mean, I understand why the NCAA is OK with medal awards and that medal awards don't raise the same amateurism concerns as paid endorsements--and I'm glad the kids get to keep that money and still compete collegiately--but when a kid can keep $750K but you suspend a different kid for a coach paying the kid's mom's rent for a month, you have a weird system. 

It's a tough balance, I admit.  I think Stanford is the college sports ideal, where the education that student-athletes receive is very valuable.  And I cringe at what college sports (and really, mainly college football and basketball) would become with unfettered money flowing to the players.  But I also find it disgusting how much money is made in college football without the players realizing the benefit of that (aside from the marginal indirect benefit of more lavish facilities, etc.).  And while it wouldn't feel right for Katie Ledecky to be able to swim for Stanford while buying herself an off-campus mansion with endorsement money, it also doesn't feel right for her to have to choose between swimming for Stanford and cashing those checks. 

It just seems to me that there is a frustrating lack of creative thinking surrounding how to square this circle.  Why can't a big chunk of football revenues be redirected toward a pension or future healthcare for the players that helped generate it?  You're not paying the kids now, but you're recognizing the value they create and you're setting something aside for them in the future.  Why not let Katie Ledecky sign endorsement deals but be restricted from accessing the bulk of the cash until she leaves college or exhausts eligibility, or similarly put into trust for her retirement?  You could also strictly limit the time she can spend for photo shoots or required appearances that are related to those endorsements, or require school approval (not to be unreasonably withheld) to ensure that the endorsed product doesn't conflict with a preexisting relationship the school may have with a competing business.  Same thing with Olympic gymnasts, who have to choose between endorsement deals and college eligibility, and who have a much shorter timeframe where they can cash in on their fame. 

If Texas A&M wants to sell jerseys with Johnny Manziel's number or "Johnny Football" on it (not that they're doing that anymore), then he ought to get a cut of that--not while in college, but someday, and in some form. 

[ColoradoTree]

You can get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by a government due to swimming success.  But if you get paid endorsement money by private companies due to swimming success? That sin is unforgivable. 

I mean, I understand why the NCAA is OK with medal awards and that medal awards don't raise the same amateurism concerns as paid endorsements--and I'm glad the kids get to keep that money and still compete collegiately--but when a kid can keep $750K but you suspend a different kid for a coach paying the kid's mom's rent for a month, you have a weird system. 

It's a tough balance, I admit.  I think Stanford is the college sports ideal, where the education that student-athletes receive is very valuable.  And I cringe at what college sports (and really, mainly college football and basketball) would become with unfettered money flowing to the players.  But I also find it disgusting how much money is made in college football without the players realizing the benefit of that (aside from the marginal indirect benefit of more lavish facilities, etc.).  And while it wouldn't feel right for Katie Ledecky to be able to swim for Stanford while buying herself an off-campus mansion with endorsement money, it also doesn't feel right for her to have to choose between swimming for Stanford and cashing those checks. 

It just seems to me that there is a frustrating lack of creative thinking surrounding how to square this circle.  Why can't a big chunk of football revenues be redirected toward a pension or future healthcare for the players that helped generate it?  You're not paying the kids now, but you're recognizing the value they create and you're setting something aside for them in the future.  Why not let Katie Ledecky sign endorsement deals but be restricted from accessing the bulk of the cash until she leaves college or exhausts eligibility, or similarly put into trust for her retirement?  You could also strictly limit the time she can spend for photo shoots or required appearances that are related to those endorsements, or require school approval (not to be unreasonably withheld) to ensure that the endorsed product doesn't conflict with a preexisting relationship the school may have with a competing business.  Same thing with Olympic gymnasts, who have to choose between endorsement deals and college eligibility, and who have a much shorter timeframe where they can cash in on their fame. 

If Texas A&M wants to sell jerseys with Johnny Manziel's number or "Johnny Football" on it (not that they're doing that anymore), then he ought to get a cut of that--not while in college, but someday, and in some form.