06-25-2019, 06:45 AM
The sport that walks this pro-amateur fence right is hockey. Of all the largest pro leagues in North America, the NHL approach makes the most sense.
In the NHL, players are drafted if they are 18 by draft day. They can be drafted from Junior teams, National Teams, International leagues, or High School. After being drafted, these players either stay with their Junior teams (who have rights on them separate from the NHL teams who draft them), continue in their International leagues, attend college, or sign NHL contracts. Sometimes they go right to NHL, but more often play in minors if signing a pro contract right away.
Junior players are amateurs and don't get paid (at least they aren't suppose to be; sort of like college sports, with same issues).
The key thing is NHL teams get player rights when they are 18, and unlike in MLB, if a player is drafted from High School and that player wants to go to college instead of sign a pro contract, the NHL keeps that player's rights.
I don't honestly understand why it makes any sense for MLB teams to lose the rights to players they draft who go to college instead of sign pro deals. Frankly, not allowing this only hurts MLB teams, as they give players leverage they should never have at such young ages when so unproven as MLB prospects.
Why shouldn't every pro league draft players when 18 and allow them to keep their rights?
The NHL does.
MLB kind of does, but has its self-defeating rules for losing rights if player goes to college.
The NBA is pretty damn close, and there is no real reason the NBA couldn't do what the NHL does either.
The NFL not even close. The NFL will argue they need to see more development from players before drafting, but how is it the responsibility of universities to help them figure it out.
All these college sports would generate more fan interest if they had players playing on them who's rights were owned by Major League teams. That would equate to more money for college sports, with no need to pay athletes. The reality is no pro teams would want to sign players to pro contracts unless they were ready; just because they own their rights, it does not follow they will pay them no matter what. If everyone agrees college is amateur, and college athletes can sign a pro contract at any time, college athletes aren't "forced" to play for free. They play in college when not good enough to get a pro contract. The key is to allow athletes to get paid when they can. If that's the case, the proposed CA law wouldn't be needed, in theory at least.
In the NHL, players are drafted if they are 18 by draft day. They can be drafted from Junior teams, National Teams, International leagues, or High School. After being drafted, these players either stay with their Junior teams (who have rights on them separate from the NHL teams who draft them), continue in their International leagues, attend college, or sign NHL contracts. Sometimes they go right to NHL, but more often play in minors if signing a pro contract right away.
Junior players are amateurs and don't get paid (at least they aren't suppose to be; sort of like college sports, with same issues).
The key thing is NHL teams get player rights when they are 18, and unlike in MLB, if a player is drafted from High School and that player wants to go to college instead of sign a pro contract, the NHL keeps that player's rights.
I don't honestly understand why it makes any sense for MLB teams to lose the rights to players they draft who go to college instead of sign pro deals. Frankly, not allowing this only hurts MLB teams, as they give players leverage they should never have at such young ages when so unproven as MLB prospects.
Why shouldn't every pro league draft players when 18 and allow them to keep their rights?
The NHL does.
MLB kind of does, but has its self-defeating rules for losing rights if player goes to college.
The NBA is pretty damn close, and there is no real reason the NBA couldn't do what the NHL does either.
The NFL not even close. The NFL will argue they need to see more development from players before drafting, but how is it the responsibility of universities to help them figure it out.
All these college sports would generate more fan interest if they had players playing on them who's rights were owned by Major League teams. That would equate to more money for college sports, with no need to pay athletes. The reality is no pro teams would want to sign players to pro contracts unless they were ready; just because they own their rights, it does not follow they will pay them no matter what. If everyone agrees college is amateur, and college athletes can sign a pro contract at any time, college athletes aren't "forced" to play for free. They play in college when not good enough to get a pro contract. The key is to allow athletes to get paid when they can. If that's the case, the proposed CA law wouldn't be needed, in theory at least.