[Goose]

Now as to what is immoral, I don't think athletes deciding where to go based on market conditions is immoral. Anecdotal information is always dangerous, but here goes:

1. Cameron Brink and her New Balance ads. That is pure NIL. People recognize her, so she has value to a shoe company. It's not a speaking part so I don't know how her endorsement money compares to someone like Caitlin Clark or Angel Reese and their State Farm work, where they speak or sing off key and Jake shows up.  (You can tell the difference in Reggie Miller's TV experience in how he delivers 'did I hear an Old Pacer' line.)  Or UNC's Armando Bacot, who gets paid to sell Turbo Tax. He's not bad.  Caleb Williams was really good in those Dr. Pepper ads. Those are clearly not bribes and I believe what NIL intended. Should schools be helping grease the skids for this work ?  I'm not sure if they are or if that would be bad. They probably shouldn't be flashing contracts for State Farm ads in front of recruits though.

Agree. These are cases where there is value received for money paid. It is even legitimate for NB to tell Brink the gig is contingent on her remaining at Stanford because NB believed her value was greatly increased by being there (even if it was unclear that was true). That is a legitimate business judgement.

2. I was paid to go to Stanford. Not for my intramural prowess of course, but to grade homework, teach hydraulic class sections, and run the lab for undergraduates. In return I received a fellowship and monthly stipend (salary, right?), the latter of which was after tax but the former was not taxed. Is that much different had they brought me in to dunk on people instead? I go to class, I do my work, I get paid.

Arguably yes, it is different. You were a Stanford employee. You were doing something that was clearly part of Stanford's "business", i.e. teaching and labs. In that capacity you functioned as an employee and anybody else doing the job would be similarly treated. You paid taxes on that. The rest was a "gift" to you to benefit your education and not tied to the work you did. Stanford qualifies as a non-profit because education is a "legitimate" justification for non-profit status. It would be very difficult to argue that a sports team with payed players qualified as an "educational purpose". With a stretch it can be argued that NCAA sports are an educational experience for the players, so paying the coaches is a legitimate business expense. Paying the students (players) as employees to play their sport would be impossible to justify. What is the educational benefit to the rest of the University? The real issue here is in what sense are athletics a legitimate part of the University's educational goals. Your work clearly contributed to education of others at Stanford. Dunking a basketball would not.

 I chose Stanford not in small part because the $17,000 cost to attend for a nine-month masters was essentially paid in full, compared to Berkeley where that $12,000 cost was uncertain, to be charitable. "Hmmm, maybe we can find you some money." Or to Cambridge (MIT) where they had plenty of money, but for two years of research in a field that wasn't my top choice. Market conditions drove my decision.

Which is absolutely reasonable on your part. In theory you could have chosen MIT because you got a job in Boston (inside or outside MIT) that paid better than Stanford did. Doesn't relate to athletics though. It is just "a job". It wasn't part of your education (although one often learns a lot from "the job"). I actually turned a profit while at Stanford. I was a TA, but my income from consulting was actually much more lucrative.

3. My son will go to business school next year at UVA (Darden), Vandy (Owen), or Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler). Duke (Fuqua) rejected him. This is all on the GI bill, so he won't be out of pocket. UNC offered him a small cash scholarship (is that a bribe?), and he should hear whether he gets substantially larger cash scholarships from either Darden or Owen. He's not playing them against each other, he's done some research about who recruits where, starting salaries, etc. and will, with his wife make an adult decision. Market conditions.

I assume the scholarships are not in return for work performed. If so, it is not "commerce" and therefore not subject to anti-trust legislation (not that he cares about that :-).

4. Herschel Walker and his Trans Am. Now that is corruption. I think we all agree on that. (Trying to draw GaCard out if he still lurks.)

:-)

[Goose]

Now as to what is immoral, I don't think athletes deciding where to go based on market conditions is immoral. Anecdotal information is always dangerous, but here goes:

1. Cameron Brink and her New Balance ads. That is pure NIL. People recognize her, so she has value to a shoe company. It's not a speaking part so I don't know how her endorsement money compares to someone like Caitlin Clark or Angel Reese and their State Farm work, where they speak or sing off key and Jake shows up.  (You can tell the difference in Reggie Miller's TV experience in how he delivers 'did I hear an Old Pacer' line.)  Or UNC's Armando Bacot, who gets paid to sell Turbo Tax. He's not bad.  Caleb Williams was really good in those Dr. Pepper ads. Those are clearly not bribes and I believe what NIL intended. Should schools be helping grease the skids for this work ?  I'm not sure if they are or if that would be bad. They probably shouldn't be flashing contracts for State Farm ads in front of recruits though.

Agree. These are cases where there is value received for money paid. It is even legitimate for NB to tell Brink the gig is contingent on her remaining at Stanford because NB believed her value was greatly increased by being there (even if it was unclear that was true). That is a legitimate business judgement.

2. I was paid to go to Stanford. Not for my intramural prowess of course, but to grade homework, teach hydraulic class sections, and run the lab for undergraduates. In return I received a fellowship and monthly stipend (salary, right?), the latter of which was after tax but the former was not taxed. Is that much different had they brought me in to dunk on people instead? I go to class, I do my work, I get paid.

Arguably yes, it is different. You were a Stanford employee. You were doing something that was clearly part of Stanford's "business", i.e. teaching and labs. In that capacity you functioned as an employee and anybody else doing the job would be similarly treated. You paid taxes on that. The rest was a "gift" to you to benefit your education and not tied to the work you did. Stanford qualifies as a non-profit because education is a "legitimate" justification for non-profit status. It would be very difficult to argue that a sports team with payed players qualified as an "educational purpose". With a stretch it can be argued that NCAA sports are an educational experience for the players, so paying the coaches is a legitimate business expense. Paying the students (players) as employees to play their sport would be impossible to justify. What is the educational benefit to the rest of the University? The real issue here is in what sense are athletics a legitimate part of the University's educational goals. Your work clearly contributed to education of others at Stanford. Dunking a basketball would not.

 I chose Stanford not in small part because the $17,000 cost to attend for a nine-month masters was essentially paid in full, compared to Berkeley where that $12,000 cost was uncertain, to be charitable. "Hmmm, maybe we can find you some money." Or to Cambridge (MIT) where they had plenty of money, but for two years of research in a field that wasn't my top choice. Market conditions drove my decision.

Which is absolutely reasonable on your part. In theory you could have chosen MIT because you got a job in Boston (inside or outside MIT) that paid better than Stanford did. Doesn't relate to athletics though. It is just "a job". It wasn't part of your education (although one often learns a lot from "the job"). I actually turned a profit while at Stanford. I was a TA, but my income from consulting was actually much more lucrative.

3. My son will go to business school next year at UVA (Darden), Vandy (Owen), or Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler). Duke (Fuqua) rejected him. This is all on the GI bill, so he won't be out of pocket. UNC offered him a small cash scholarship (is that a bribe?), and he should hear whether he gets substantially larger cash scholarships from either Darden or Owen. He's not playing them against each other, he's done some research about who recruits where, starting salaries, etc. and will, with his wife make an adult decision. Market conditions.

I assume the scholarships are not in return for work performed. If so, it is not "commerce" and therefore not subject to anti-trust legislation (not that he cares about that :-).

4. Herschel Walker and his Trans Am. Now that is corruption. I think we all agree on that. (Trying to draw GaCard out if he still lurks.)

:-)