05-05-2022, 08:32 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-05-2022, 08:34 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Once you give something to people, it's near impossible to take it back. And just because you take it back doesn't mean those who lost it will stop trying to get it back. Russia is finding this out in Ukraine, and those wanting to taking privacy rights from women are going to find out.
And so too are boosters not going to give up the power they seized when the NCAA went to sleep and flew the white flag on student athlete compensation and NIL. Do you really think a Senator from Tennessee - heart of SEC country - is not going to be bought off by boosters to block any attempt at limiting their newfound power? Really?
Kliavkoff and Sankey are showing how desperate they are to stop the inevitable - schools forced to pay athletes as employees - from happening. The words Kliavkoff uses make it pretty clear. They can form a small group if they want, but someone representing the athletes can sue under the guise schools are colluding to suppress compensation, they will be 100% correct, and courts will affirm this fact.
It's just another piece of evidence that proves my contention that so many on this board can't accept, that the NCAA blew it by not doing enough to placate athletes by proactively offering them more. Some will say if schools gave athletes something as a goodwill gesture, they would sue for more, but I don't think college athletes were looking for the kind of money we see in some of these NIL deals, when asking for better conditions, a lot of which didn't even involve cash payments.
As soon as schools give up trying to monetize the bodies of athletes, they can stand on firm ground taking a position against "pay for play." But until they do that, they are standing on sinking ground and will lose. Every business in the country would love to suppress the wages its labor can receive, but it can't be done without permission. Why should schools get to suppress wages without consent from labor while nobody else can?
The more money is bandied about with NIL deals, the more it becomes clear the athletes don't care about being students, as much as paid professionals. The contradictions the schools have to argue through leave their position without any credibility, unless you are Stanford, and maybe a handful of others.
And so too are boosters not going to give up the power they seized when the NCAA went to sleep and flew the white flag on student athlete compensation and NIL. Do you really think a Senator from Tennessee - heart of SEC country - is not going to be bought off by boosters to block any attempt at limiting their newfound power? Really?
Kliavkoff and Sankey are showing how desperate they are to stop the inevitable - schools forced to pay athletes as employees - from happening. The words Kliavkoff uses make it pretty clear. They can form a small group if they want, but someone representing the athletes can sue under the guise schools are colluding to suppress compensation, they will be 100% correct, and courts will affirm this fact.
It's just another piece of evidence that proves my contention that so many on this board can't accept, that the NCAA blew it by not doing enough to placate athletes by proactively offering them more. Some will say if schools gave athletes something as a goodwill gesture, they would sue for more, but I don't think college athletes were looking for the kind of money we see in some of these NIL deals, when asking for better conditions, a lot of which didn't even involve cash payments.
As soon as schools give up trying to monetize the bodies of athletes, they can stand on firm ground taking a position against "pay for play." But until they do that, they are standing on sinking ground and will lose. Every business in the country would love to suppress the wages its labor can receive, but it can't be done without permission. Why should schools get to suppress wages without consent from labor while nobody else can?
The more money is bandied about with NIL deals, the more it becomes clear the athletes don't care about being students, as much as paid professionals. The contradictions the schools have to argue through leave their position without any credibility, unless you are Stanford, and maybe a handful of others.