[Spiny_Norman]

If your view is that student-athletes are athletes first, who happen to be affiliated with a University, then by all means, they should share in the bounty they gerente for their universities and be paid the market rate for their labor.

On the other hand, if your view is that college student athletes are students first, who happen to support their collegiate tuition with their athletic endeavors, then it doesn’t necessarily follow that they should be paid.

I get that I am in a distinct minority here, and that reality kind of gives lie to the ideal. But it is worth noting that the vast majority of student athletes go onto careers outside of athletics.

Be careful what you wish for, OL, for you might just get it.

BC

I'm very much of the opinion that student athletes are students first, and not employees.  Further, I think the club model that applies to baseball, and - in most of the world - futbol, hockey, and basketball, is a disaster of many late adolescents. It maroons them in an athletic channel that leads nowhere, if the athletic career doesn't work out, as most don't. 

So schools should not pay athletes, because they aren't employees. But if they are students, the question naturally arises why the school has any interest in the economic circumstances of this one particular class of student. If a student blessed with musical talent publishes a song and gets ASCAP royalties (which has happened), no one cares. If a former child actor (e.g., Fred Savage) receives residuals, it's a matter of indifference.

So why are we concerned with this one unique category of student? The short answer, beyond the basic inquiry as to whether payment isn't disguised compensation from the school, is that there is not the slightest reason why we should be.

The 'ugliness' here is entirely artificial, a result of value judgments that we all got used to, which were probably valid back in the day when professional sports were not as remunerative as they are now, but have been outdated for at least 30 years.

Regardless of what any of us think, it seems likely that the student-athlete-employee is coming.

https://www.on3.com/news/4-big-challenge...placement/

Talk with the smartest industry minds and they’ll tell you it’s coming. They don’t know when, they don’t know how. It may be through legislation, litigation or the unfair labor practice charges filed with the National Labor Relation Board. In any event, there is a high probability, if not an inevitability, that sometime in the next few years at least a subset of student-athletes will be deemed employees of their universities. This will serve as a monumental reset in the collegiate model. Some of the sharpest athletic directors already are modeling out what this dynamic would entail at their university.

 . . . . When On3 this winter asked Casey Schwab, founder of NIL-focused Altius Sports Partners, to characterize the feelings of athletic directors about the likelihood of athletes being deemed employees, he said: "Pessimistic, reluctant acceptance. It’s not a positive feeling. It’s, ‘This is going to happen. We get it. This isn’t going to be good for the schools. It’s not going to be good for the athletes.’ ”

[Spiny_Norman]

If your view is that student-athletes are athletes first, who happen to be affiliated with a University, then by all means, they should share in the bounty they gerente for their universities and be paid the market rate for their labor.

On the other hand, if your view is that college student athletes are students first, who happen to support their collegiate tuition with their athletic endeavors, then it doesn’t necessarily follow that they should be paid.

I get that I am in a distinct minority here, and that reality kind of gives lie to the ideal. But it is worth noting that the vast majority of student athletes go onto careers outside of athletics.

Be careful what you wish for, OL, for you might just get it.

BC

I'm very much of the opinion that student athletes are students first, and not employees.  Further, I think the club model that applies to baseball, and - in most of the world - futbol, hockey, and basketball, is a disaster of many late adolescents. It maroons them in an athletic channel that leads nowhere, if the athletic career doesn't work out, as most don't. 

So schools should not pay athletes, because they aren't employees. But if they are students, the question naturally arises why the school has any interest in the economic circumstances of this one particular class of student. If a student blessed with musical talent publishes a song and gets ASCAP royalties (which has happened), no one cares. If a former child actor (e.g., Fred Savage) receives residuals, it's a matter of indifference.

So why are we concerned with this one unique category of student? The short answer, beyond the basic inquiry as to whether payment isn't disguised compensation from the school, is that there is not the slightest reason why we should be.

The 'ugliness' here is entirely artificial, a result of value judgments that we all got used to, which were probably valid back in the day when professional sports were not as remunerative as they are now, but have been outdated for at least 30 years.

Regardless of what any of us think, it seems likely that the student-athlete-employee is coming.

https://www.on3.com/news/4-big-challenge...placement/

Talk with the smartest industry minds and they’ll tell you it’s coming. They don’t know when, they don’t know how. It may be through legislation, litigation or the unfair labor practice charges filed with the National Labor Relation Board. In any event, there is a high probability, if not an inevitability, that sometime in the next few years at least a subset of student-athletes will be deemed employees of their universities. This will serve as a monumental reset in the collegiate model. Some of the sharpest athletic directors already are modeling out what this dynamic would entail at their university.

 . . . . When On3 this winter asked Casey Schwab, founder of NIL-focused Altius Sports Partners, to characterize the feelings of athletic directors about the likelihood of athletes being deemed employees, he said: "Pessimistic, reluctant acceptance. It’s not a positive feeling. It’s, ‘This is going to happen. We get it. This isn’t going to be good for the schools. It’s not going to be good for the athletes.’ ”