[OutsiderFan]

Is a Stanford scholarship more valuable than a San Jose State one? Maybe a rhetorical question, but nobody has a problem with the fact attending Stanford offers more value to an athlete than San Jose State. This sets up a flimsy argument against allowing athletes to profit from NIL.  It's not OK to be paid now, but ability to get to the top of candidate lists for jobs, have more valuable networking opportunities, to ostensibly to earn more in the long run by going to Stanford, is OK for an athlete. What? This position comes down to dictating not when young people can have money earned off of them, but who can earn it, and basically saying it's OK for someone else to exclusively profit from a legal adult's talent, but not the adult. 

So what if a San Jose State booster decides to give big endorsement checks to athletes that make them choose San Jose State over Stanford. Maybe San Jose State becomes a national power in whatever sport that way.  It's just the market working if this happens. What would be wrong with this?  The school isn't paying the athletes, so it isn't their expense.  Of course, maybe coaches won't be paid so much when athletes can get paid for their NIL, but what, exactly, would be wrong with that? 

I can appreciate the arguments that a booster would way overpay players endorsement money to get the best players to play for their school. So what, it's a free country. If a business owner wants to overpay and hurt his/her personal of professional endeavors to do that, that's his/or her prerogative to do so.  My assumption is the schools that have the most booster and fan support will continue getting the best players and nothing will materially change in terms of who the top programs are. Coaches will be paid less, and the facility arms race will be replaced by an endorsement one. IOW, nothing really changes other than college athletes earning money for their market value, like every other person in the country can. The horror.

[OutsiderFan]

Is a Stanford scholarship more valuable than a San Jose State one? Maybe a rhetorical question, but nobody has a problem with the fact attending Stanford offers more value to an athlete than San Jose State. This sets up a flimsy argument against allowing athletes to profit from NIL.  It's not OK to be paid now, but ability to get to the top of candidate lists for jobs, have more valuable networking opportunities, to ostensibly to earn more in the long run by going to Stanford, is OK for an athlete. What? This position comes down to dictating not when young people can have money earned off of them, but who can earn it, and basically saying it's OK for someone else to exclusively profit from a legal adult's talent, but not the adult. 

So what if a San Jose State booster decides to give big endorsement checks to athletes that make them choose San Jose State over Stanford. Maybe San Jose State becomes a national power in whatever sport that way.  It's just the market working if this happens. What would be wrong with this?  The school isn't paying the athletes, so it isn't their expense.  Of course, maybe coaches won't be paid so much when athletes can get paid for their NIL, but what, exactly, would be wrong with that? 

I can appreciate the arguments that a booster would way overpay players endorsement money to get the best players to play for their school. So what, it's a free country. If a business owner wants to overpay and hurt his/her personal of professional endeavors to do that, that's his/or her prerogative to do so.  My assumption is the schools that have the most booster and fan support will continue getting the best players and nothing will materially change in terms of who the top programs are. Coaches will be paid less, and the facility arms race will be replaced by an endorsement one. IOW, nothing really changes other than college athletes earning money for their market value, like every other person in the country can. The horror.