"Wow, you have a very impressive skillset. You've obviously worked very hard to get where you are. We'd like to hire you, but we're not going to pay you what you're worth, because we're going to keep all the profits. And if you try to profit off of your abilities outside of this institution, you will be disciplined. There are no other outlets by which you are able to utilize your skills, so this is your only option. Take it or leave it."
…imagine that conversation happening between H.R. and a prospective doctor seeking employment at a hospital...
That's a ridiculous argument....because that DOCTOR has completed 8 years of college....likely mostly at his own expense. Comparing that to a 20 year old kid thinking he should be getting paid for playing a sport ON TOP of $100,000 in education is ridiculous.
The most basic principle of economic profit involves supply and demand. The supply for highly talented collegiate athletes is very low, and the demand is very high. Similarly, the supply of doctors is low and the demand is high. Doctors benefit economically from their skills, but college athletes do not.
The doctor's prior education and expenses have nothing to do with his or her abilities to profit off of his or her current skillset. Nor does it have anything to do with the athlete's.
Wait....your last post was about an HR guy interviewing a potential doctor.... You're the doctor's education and the expenses they incurred to get to where they are has nothing to do with his ability to make more money? So every graduate of every medical school is equal? Do you think that a doctor will end up with the same skillset regardless of where they attended medical school? Are the top medical schools the same cost as lesser quality medical schools?