[OutsiderFan]

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were probably valid back in the day when professional sports were not as remunerative as they are now, but have been outdated for at least 30 years.

GR, I think you are missing a very important point. Nobody cares where a Fred Savage goes to school and the school isn't making money based on him going there. Many, many care where a John Elway goes to school and the school can make a lot of money based on him going there. The reason why people care about the financial success of athletes is because that financial success is now tied to where a John Elway goes to school. 

The NCAA doesn't want compensation amount to determine where an athlete goes to school, but it is now living in a world where the only way it can stop this from happening is to classify athletes as employees so they can unionize and collectively bargain away unregulated free agency.

[OutsiderFan]

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.

GR, I think you are missing a very important point. Nobody cares where a Fred Savage goes to school and the school isn't making money based on him going there. Many, many care where a John Elway goes to school and the school can make a lot of money based on him going there. The reason why people care about the financial success of athletes is because that financial success is now tied to where a John Elway goes to school. 

The NCAA doesn't want compensation amount to determine where an athlete goes to school, but it is now living in a world where the only way it can stop this from happening is to classify athletes as employees so they can unionize and collectively bargain away unregulated free agency.