06-15-2022, 06:03 PM
For GR, I don’t have that much of an issue with athletes being paid in exchange for a cut of their future professional earnings, as long is it an above board transaction, and not designed to exploit the athlete (or, onerous back end terms). I have a bit more of an issue when the payment is for the athlete to go to a particular school, as it looks like most of these collectives are.
For Outsider, the amount of “labor” provided by an uncompensated field hockey player is going to be the same as that put in by a star QB paid $10M, so if it is just about unpaid labor, you are going to have a problem, so this is really more about profiting from the value they create, then that is something different. I have often argued that the NCAA and the schools (and television networks) have created this monster, by consistently asking for more from the athletes. For example, football went from 11 to 12 games, added conference championships, proliferated bowl games, created a playoff, and moved games to accommodate TV schedules rather than the athletes’ schedules, all the while maximizing TV revenue, so I get it. But I don’t think that in the big picture that has been good for anyone, least of all the athletes, and the current mania just furthers things.
The seminal difference between college and professional athletics is supposed to be the fact that they are student athletes. Back when I was at Stanford, I shared a freshman dorm with Brevin Knight. I met Tiger Woods. I was in the same dorm as Kristin Folkl, not to mention a bunch of athletes who were role players, bench players, etc. What United is all is that we were all students, went to many of the same classes, ate the same crappy dorm food, etc. What we are headed towards is professional athletes loosely affiliated with a school. I don’t have an issue if that’s what you want from collegiate athletics, but you are not going to get me to like it, and my interests seem destined to fade, or to focus on those athletes who work just as hard, practice just as much, but do so to support their Stanford education, rather than those who go to class to support their eligibility to participate in professional collegiate sports.
BC
For Outsider, the amount of “labor” provided by an uncompensated field hockey player is going to be the same as that put in by a star QB paid $10M, so if it is just about unpaid labor, you are going to have a problem, so this is really more about profiting from the value they create, then that is something different. I have often argued that the NCAA and the schools (and television networks) have created this monster, by consistently asking for more from the athletes. For example, football went from 11 to 12 games, added conference championships, proliferated bowl games, created a playoff, and moved games to accommodate TV schedules rather than the athletes’ schedules, all the while maximizing TV revenue, so I get it. But I don’t think that in the big picture that has been good for anyone, least of all the athletes, and the current mania just furthers things.
The seminal difference between college and professional athletics is supposed to be the fact that they are student athletes. Back when I was at Stanford, I shared a freshman dorm with Brevin Knight. I met Tiger Woods. I was in the same dorm as Kristin Folkl, not to mention a bunch of athletes who were role players, bench players, etc. What United is all is that we were all students, went to many of the same classes, ate the same crappy dorm food, etc. What we are headed towards is professional athletes loosely affiliated with a school. I don’t have an issue if that’s what you want from collegiate athletics, but you are not going to get me to like it, and my interests seem destined to fade, or to focus on those athletes who work just as hard, practice just as much, but do so to support their Stanford education, rather than those who go to class to support their eligibility to participate in professional collegiate sports.
BC