California Lawmakers Vote to Undo N.C.A.A. Amateurism

NorCalBBDad posted:

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:

NorCalBBDad posted:

Looking forward to seeing how this turns out. The players' allegiance will turn from the school to the sponsor. Imagine if Nike said to Zion "Wow Zion, that was close. Listen, we have too much money invested in you to take a chance on anything happening to you. We want you to take the rest of the season off - no ACC tournament or NCAA - and we'll give you another $20 million when you are drafted into the pros." The Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Does that sound like making money from their image, likeness or name? No, that sounds like something different, and therefore outside the intent of what they are doing. 

Ah. I see what you are saying. Allow me to expand my fact pattern. Zion Williamson commits to attend Duke University. Nike and Addidas get into a bidding war, for the ability to use his likeness in a large poster and print advertisements showing a picture of Zion wearing their shoe that says "Zion Williamson wears Nike (or Addidas)." He is not making an endorsement or a commercial. They see he is valuable NOT really as a college player, but as the pro player he is going to become after one year in college. They see him as the next LeBron/Jordan/Durant/Curry and want to get him locked up. Zion goes with Nike who pays him $20 million so they can use his likeness in college - banking that creating this relationship will give them an edge when he goes pro. Zion then twists his ankle and is out several games. The injury, it is widely seen, could have been much worse. Nike sees its $20 million and the future hundreds of millions it was going to make off his endorsements and commercials and five different "Z Dubs" shoes flash before its eyes and nearly go down the tubes and up in smoke, respectively.

My fact pattern then continues on as above. We have already seen college athletes, like McCaffery, skip football bowl games to protect their professional future. Is it so hard to believe that athletes might do the same in this scenario? True, they can do it NOW, but NOW it is all speculation - they can't be communicating (I think). They probably rightly BELIEVE they will make millions on graduation, but with this legislation a perfectly legal business relationship can be created between the player and corporation - who primarily cares about its investment in the player - BEFORE graduation and DURING the competition season.

Is this not a possible interpretation of the legislation?

It’s called insurance. Players already can take out insurance policies to protect their financial future in the event of a career ending injury. Insurance policies can literally be written for ANYTHING, and if a company is going to tie up millions in an athlete, especially if they are anticipating future performance, they better have an insurance policy. Also, in your example, McCaffrey sat out bowl game so he could ensure he could play, not to ensure he would not get injured to protect an endorsement contract. I think there is a difference.

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:

How many guys actually get their educations prior to turning pro? Look, I get it, virtually every decision anyone makes has an unintended consequence. You suss out as many of those as you can before the law goes live, and hopefully it’s 90% tight. After that, you make adjustments to close loopholes that are cause for abuse. Nobody is perfect, but what you seem to be trying to say, with a good dose of piss and vinegar, is that the status quo is just fine, we can’t do better than that. We can, and we will. I think enough states will join the march to make the NCAA change their philosophy on this. I do t think anyone really expects California to screw over their top educational universities for the benefit of a few athletes, but the idea that anyone else on that college campus can earn income from their name image or likeness except an athlete simply because they are an athlete is ridiculous.  You watch 18 year old millionaires every time you watch a 1st and sometimes 2nd rd draft pick play in the minor leagues.  Again, I really dont think the value of these endorsement deals, on average, will be anywhere close to making too many millionaires. Zion is a generational talent and not the norm.

 

 

Fair enough, I think your intentions are good but you are being naive. I know business men and money. It is going to be an epic failure and is a mistake. Maybe there is better out there but this isn’t it. 

None of these kids will be worth a dime to any advertiser if they don’t compete...who cares if a kid is a 5-star recruit if he refuses to play the game for potential revenue. The athletes with value are performers on the field in their sports. I don’t see anyone with an endorsement deal who hasn’t separated themselves from their peers thru athletic performance. Oh, forgot to let you know that the sky is falling, guys.

old_school posted:

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:

How many guys actually get their educations prior to turning pro? Look, I get it, virtually every decision anyone makes has an unintended consequence. You suss out as many of those as you can before the law goes live, and hopefully it’s 90% tight. After that, you make adjustments to close loopholes that are cause for abuse. Nobody is perfect, but what you seem to be trying to say, with a good dose of piss and vinegar, is that the status quo is just fine, we can’t do better than that. We can, and we will. I think enough states will join the march to make the NCAA change their philosophy on this. I do t think anyone really expects California to screw over their top educational universities for the benefit of a few athletes, but the idea that anyone else on that college campus can earn income from their name image or likeness except an athlete simply because they are an athlete is ridiculous.  You watch 18 year old millionaires every time you watch a 1st and sometimes 2nd rd draft pick play in the minor leagues.  Again, I really dont think the value of these endorsement deals, on average, will be anywhere close to making too many millionaires. Zion is a generational talent and not the norm.

 

 

Fair enough, I think your intentions are good but you are being naive. I know business men and money. It is going to be an epic failure and is a mistake. Maybe there is better out there but this isn’t it. 

And the NCAA has been a white paper for success? Come up with a plan, share it. I am all ears.

NorCalBBDad posted:

Looking forward to seeing how this turns out. The players' allegiance will turn from the school to the sponsor. Imagine if Nike said to Zion "Wow Zion, that was close. Listen, we have too much money invested in you to take a chance on anything happening to you. We want you to take the rest of the season off - no ACC tournament or NCAA - and we'll give you another $20 million when you are drafted into the pros." The Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Bingo!

This is why the rules are in place to begin with. If this passes you'e going to have guys transferring and picking schools based on which booster provides the biggest payday, it will have almost nothing to do with the education - which is the first part of student-athlete. You're going to have the check writer calling the shots. 

My problem isn't necessarily with the payday, it has more to do with the devaluation of the education. Good luck getting the star PG to go to history lecture when Nike is offering 20k for a commercial shoot. 

There are other options outside of college sports. For the people to say that it isn't fair they don't get a piece of the pie - that's nonsense. They're choosing to pass up other pro leagues for the rules that the NCAA has established. Because all these kids know that if they stink at the collegiate level they can always continue on with the education. How can you enter a contract with an institution (NCAA) and then complain about the terms. Fair pay to play still doesn't make sense. While it's a worthwhile idea (letting kids profit off their image) the reality of it is that star running back will do whatever the paycheck tells him to do and if that includes missing the last 6 games of the season that is what he'll do.

PABaseball posted:

NorCalBBDad posted:

Looking forward to seeing how this turns out. The players' allegiance will turn from the school to the sponsor. Imagine if Nike said to Zion "Wow Zion, that was close. Listen, we have too much money invested in you to take a chance on anything happening to you. We want you to take the rest of the season off - no ACC tournament or NCAA - and we'll give you another $20 million when you are drafted into the pros." The Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Bingo!

This is why the rules are in place to begin with. If this passes you'e going to have guys transferring and picking schools based on which booster provides the biggest payday, it will have almost nothing to do with the education - which is the first part of student-athlete. You're going to have the check writer calling the shots. 

My problem isn't necessarily with the payday, it has more to do with the devaluation of the education. Good luck getting the star PG to go to history lecture when Nike is offering 20k for a commercial shoot. 

There are other options outside of college sports. For the people to say that it isn't fair they don't get a piece of the pie - that's nonsense. They're choosing to pass up other pro leagues for the rules that the NCAA has established. Because all these kids know that if they stink at the collegiate level they can always continue on with the education. How can you enter a contract with an institution (NCAA) and then complain about the terms. Fair pay to play still doesn't make sense. While it's a worthwhile idea (letting kids profit off their image) the reality of it is that star running back will do whatever the paycheck tells him to do and if that includes missing the last 6 games of the season that is what he'll do.

1) Kids who will make meaningful money from endorsements don't choose their schools today because of the educations they offer.  No offense to Zion, who apparently was a pretty good student, but do you think he went to Duke because he really liked their History Department?

2)  These kinds of players go to college for a year or two to improve their marketability, maybe to grow up a little.  You can't "devalue" their college experience, because they aren't in it for the education.  Again, the CA bill is about endorsements.  This will not be an issue for water polo and field hockey players.  To talk about one-and-done basketball players as "student athletes" is insanity.

Can someone name one superstar football or basketball player who did a full 4-years at their school in recent history? Basketball players are attending colleges in large part because of the NBA’s rules (superstar caliber players). The rest attend because they know they either need to fix holes in their game against the best competition available or they really do want an education. Either way, they are getting a full ride. Football players aren’t eligible for the draft out of HS, nor are they physically mature enough to play at the pro level at that age. A lot of posters on here from California sure have a different outlook on this that those from other states with no skin in the game. As it currently stands, there are players already being pushed to play at certain schools due to impermissible benefits coming from boosters...so is this really a valid argument? By legalizing the ability to earn, it allows it to be regulated...and perhaps we can get it right 90% initially. I just don’t see how everyone thinks there is no better option than the status quo. If any of our kids became the next Bryce Harper while in college (endorsement-wise) I am pretty sure we would all appreciate that windfall.

Collegebaseballrecruitingguide

How do you propose to this to be regulated?

Not directly related to the scenarios so far presented but should this kid have been kicked out of the NCAA for writing a book?

https://www.golf.com/news/feat...-dylan-dethier-ncaa/

Most of the stuff argued in this thread has been going on for years.  The shoe companies have been running college basketball for the last 20 years.  There is an ongoing FBI investigation into this very matter.  The shoe companies will be running college basketball for the next 20 years.  The difference is that the athletes will now get their endorsement money out in the open.  They have been getting paid for the last two decades.  Duke and Kentucky are 1 and 2 every year in recruiting, the new rules aren't going to change anything.  They will still be 1 and 2. 

In college football the same 10 schools will continue to be the top 10 every year in recruiting and the same blue bloods will continue to dominate.  Outside of a team here or there, that is how it has always been and how it will always be. 

Not sure how this changes anything for the mid majors.  They are always at a disadvantage and really have no shot outside of an occasional run in the NCAAT in basketball or on the baseball field.

I don't know the answers and I don't know exactly how this ends up .  I do know that when March Madness creates 900 million in revenue, the players are going to want a piece of the action.  I know when college football coaches are making 8-10 million a year, the players are going to want a piece of the action.  There are now laws being created in NY, NC, Florida to go along with the California law.  The NY law is the worst as it gives 15% of the gate to the athletes.  That will take money out of the school's budget and that law will kill the smaller schools.  Plus, it is a Title 9 nightmare.  I do think the best way to compensate players is to let them make money from their likeness.   

greatgame posted:

Collegebaseballrecruitingguide

How do you propose to this to be regulated?

 

Not sure, we have 3 years to figure it out. Smarter people than me will be chewing on this, but I don’t think this is as bad a thing as everyone thinks. 

d-mac posted:

I don't know the answers and I don't know exactly how this ends up .  I do know that when March Madness creates 900 million in revenue, the players are going to want a piece of the action.  I know when college football coaches are making 8-10 million a year, the players are going to want a piece of the action.  There are now laws being created in NY, NC, Florida to go along with the California law.  The NY law is the worst as it gives 15% of the gate to the athletes.  That will take money out of the school's budget and that law will kill the smaller schools.  Plus, it is a Title 9 nightmare.  I do think the best way to compensate players is to let them make money from their likeness.   

The athletes don't end up getting a piece of the action. The NCAA will still pull in all that money, coaches will still make 8-10 million. And that 8-10 million is justified when they put a product not he field that generates hundreds of million in revenue.

I'm not entirely sure what gives these guys the right to a piece of the action. Forfeit the free education, housing, max meal plan, healthcare, clothing, books, etc, let the guys pay out of pocket and gamble on themselves and watch how quickly the tables turn. There are probably close to 300 athletes who would be wise to take that deal, for the rest they will never come close to recouping  that investment in advertisements. 

The NY State Law makes the least sense to me. It really only has any meaningful value for Syracuse. Is Suny Binghampton really going to give 15% of the $2,000 gate to 14 different players? Lol 

PABaseball posted:

d-mac posted:

 

The athletes don't end up getting a piece of the action. The NCAA will still pull in all that money, coaches will still make 8-10 million. And that 8-10 million is justified when they put a product not he field that generates hundreds of million in revenue.

 

No disrespect, but I don’t understand this reasoning.  I have no qualms about a great coach getting paid a market rate salary, but no coach puts any “product on the field.”  I watch games to see the players, who are the ones actually competing. If Saban coached my local HS’s football team, they might win a few more games, but 50,000 people aren’t going to come to watch them play. 

For most athletes in most sports, a full scholarship is likely worth more than they could earn on the market. (Of course, many athletes get partial or no scholarships, and most sports generate negative net revenues.). But I have yet to see any commenter here even try to explain why players who generate outsized revenues for their schools (“name” players in basketball and football and a handful of Olympians, basically) shouldn’t be able to earn what they are worth. Are you opposed to capitalism in general?  If not, then why is it ok for college sports to permit capitalism for literally everyone involved except the “workers” who create the “product” people pay billions to watch?  It’s like arguing that every actor on a movie set should get $50k salary, including the big-time stars, even if the movie earns $300M after expenses.  There is a reason this doesn’t happen: because markets don’t work that way.  

There are all kinds of potential problems and pitfalls to changing the current system. But IMO the current system has to change. I don’t pretend to know what the answers are, but “pay everyone except the star players” just doesn’t sit right with me. 

Chico Escuela posted:

PABaseball posted:

d-mac posted:

 

The athletes don't end up getting a piece of the action. The NCAA will still pull in all that money, coaches will still make 8-10 million. And that 8-10 million is justified when they put a product not he field that generates hundreds of million in revenue.

 

No disrespect, but I don’t understand this reasoning.  I have no qualms about a great coach getting paid a market rate salary, but no coach puts any “product on the field.”  I watch games to see the players, who are the ones actually competing. If Saban coached my local HS’s football team, they might win a few more games, but 50,000 people aren’t going to come to watch them play. 

For most athletes in most sports, a full scholarship is likely worth more than they could earn on the market. (Of course, many athletes get partial or no scholarships, and most sports generate negative net revenues.). But I have yet to see any commenter here even try to explain why players who generate outsized revenues for their schools (“name” players in basketball and football and a handful of Olympians, basically) shouldn’t be able to earn what they are worth. Are you opposed to capitalism in general?  If not, then why is it ok for college sports to permit capitalism for literally everyone involved except the “workers” who create the “product” people pay billions to watch?  It’s like arguing that every actor on a movie set should get $50k salary, including the big-time stars, even if the movie earns $300M after expenses.  There is a reason this doesn’t happen: because markets don’t work that way.  

There are all kinds of potential problems and pitfalls to changing the current system. But IMO the current system has to change. I don’t pretend to know what the answers are, but “pay everyone except the star players” just doesn’t sit right with me. 

Thank you. It’s easy to sit in wherever USA and take pot shots at this, but these new laws are trying to level the economic playing field so athletes are not discriminated against in their ability to earn from something uniquely theirs. I just don’t understand all of the pushback and negativity toward something like this. Yes there has been corruption in the past, but please remember the past is still the present. Nothing has changed from the past. The future, however, is yet to unfold and we can still shape it.

Chico Escuela posted:

PABaseball posted:

The athletes don't end up getting a piece of the action. The NCAA will still pull in all that money, coaches will still make 8-10 million. And that 8-10 million is justified when they put a product not he field that generates hundreds of million in revenue.

No disrespect, but I don’t understand this reasoning.  I have no qualms about a great coach getting paid a market rate salary, but no coach puts any “product on the field.”  I watch games to see the players, who are the ones actually competing. If Saban coached my local HS’s football team, they might win a few more games, but 50,000 people aren’t going to come to watch them play. 

For most athletes in most sports, a full scholarship is likely worth more than they could earn on the market. (Of course, many athletes get partial or no scholarships, and most sports generate negative net revenues.). But I have yet to see any commenter here even try to explain why players who generate outsized revenues for their schools (“name” players in basketball and football and a handful of Olympians, basically) shouldn’t be able to earn what they are worth. Are you opposed to capitalism in general?  If not, then why is it ok for college sports to permit capitalism for literally everyone involved except the “workers” who create the “product” people pay billions to watch?  It’s like arguing that every actor on a movie set should get $50k salary, including the big-time stars, even if the movie earns $300M after expenses.  There is a reason this doesn’t happen: because markets don’t work that way.  

There are all kinds of potential problems and pitfalls to changing the current system. But IMO the current system has to change. I don’t pretend to know what the answers are, but “pay everyone except the star players” just doesn’t sit right with me. 

When HS athletes enter college there is no guarantee they go pro, there is no guarantee they are even successful at the collegiate level. They receive full tuition, free books, free housing, apparel, backpacks, free meal plans, and basically non prescription healthcare coverage. For about 300 athletes, their worth exceeds this value. They are worth millions and college did hold them back financially, with the tradeoff to that being that they got a head start on a free degree or are almost done with it. Now for every other college athlete they need that degree and will never be worth anything more than a potential successful alumni to the school. 

As for the money here is the problem. Athletes can receive money from boosters and companies for their image, great. Mike StudQB goes on recruiting visits. On the visits, the pitch isn't about the school or the facilities, it's about which booster has the biggest paycheck. Now Mike StudQB is making a decision based on money. When Mike StudQB gets to college and isn't the starter the endorsers drop their contract. Now Mike StudQB is looking for a new school that will pay him, now it has nothing to do with the education. What happens when Nike tells Joe StudRB that they'll give him more money and a shoe deal when he is the first pick in the NFL draft. But his stock is already thru the roof, just sit out the last 5 games because you can only get injured. Johnny Touchdowns will get a nice paycheck for the car dealership. They'll also set his mom up with a nice job if he attends the school of their choice and make 4 more commercial appearances. What happens when Andre All Star starts missing class to go to he mall for a poster signing and can't stay eligible, but likely won't be drafted this year? What happens when Zion tears thru a shoe and decides he doesn't like Nike anymore. Does he leave his school and go elsewhere? Do brands still get to pay to supply apparel for the schools? These are very lucrative deals for the institutions that supply the full scholarships and pay coaches. 

Athletes do not need a piece. Things are structured the way that they are so things like this do not happen. Athletes enter into contracts in which all the things listed (tuition, food, etc) are all supplied and the only rule is they must remain amateur. The other option is to not take the bad deal (college) and go pro in another country or league. That is capitalism, deciding your worth and getting your true value in the market. Not entering in a contract that explicitly states you can't make money and then complaining that you're broke. These kids know that the NCAA provides the biggest platform for them to raise their stock, they know that if they are injured for 3 straight years that they will have a degree to fall back on, which is why they pass up other options - because they are not as good. They can wait 3 years and take the big money because the CFL does not give them the platform to do that. If you want to blame somebody blame the NBA for not allowing kids to come out of HS. Blame the NFL for not having a minor league/developmental program. 

The only alternatives I see to athletes being able to profit is to forfeit the tuition and all the benefits and pay out of pocket. Gamble on yourself if you feel you're worth it. If the education is worthless for the top athletes then why don't they go to Australia for a year and make some money while waiting for the next NBA draft? Because they know they are one injury away from having no money and no education. 

It will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.   College football is already top heavy.  The same few schools playing musical chairs in the national championship playoffs.   The game will become unwatchable if bidding condenses talent to even fewer schools.  They need to find a way to increase parity. This won't do that.

Why is the choice framed as "make all of them give up the free education.  . . . ." in exchange for a relative handful getting big money?

I would suggest that the BASELINE owed (analogous to minimum wage) is the present setup; to those relative handful who could (by dint of their superior skills in a superior skills environment) earn more, well, that's a reward for hard, hard work.

Note that over the years since the present basic scholly structure evolved, the $$$$$$ have dramatically increased and schools, coaches, and the NCAA rake in fortunes - but players haven't fundamentally increased their well being.  This allows the very best - upon whose skills others make fortunes  - to get theirs (and not at the expense of the many). To the rest - the vast majority - they get what they've been getting (earned through their hard, hard work).

As problems arise under this change, adjustments will need to be made - just like under the present scheme.

PABaseball posted:

Chico Escuela posted:

PABaseball posted:

The athletes don't end up getting a piece of the action. The NCAA will still pull in all that money, coaches will still make 8-10 million. And that 8-10 million is justified when they put a product not he field that generates hundreds of million in revenue.

No disrespect, but I don’t understand this reasoning.  I have no qualms about a great coach getting paid a market rate salary, but no coach puts any “product on the field.”  I watch games to see the players, who are the ones actually competing. If Saban coached my local HS’s football team, they might win a few more games, but 50,000 people aren’t going to come to watch them play. 

For most athletes in most sports, a full scholarship is likely worth more than they could earn on the market. (Of course, many athletes get partial or no scholarships, and most sports generate negative net revenues.). But I have yet to see any commenter here even try to explain why players who generate outsized revenues for their schools (“name” players in basketball and football and a handful of Olympians, basically) shouldn’t be able to earn what they are worth. Are you opposed to capitalism in general?  If not, then why is it ok for college sports to permit capitalism for literally everyone involved except the “workers” who create the “product” people pay billions to watch?  It’s like arguing that every actor on a movie set should get $50k salary, including the big-time stars, even if the movie earns $300M after expenses.  There is a reason this doesn’t happen: because markets don’t work that way.  

There are all kinds of potential problems and pitfalls to changing the current system. But IMO the current system has to change. I don’t pretend to know what the answers are, but “pay everyone except the star players” just doesn’t sit right with me. 

When HS athletes enter college there is no guarantee they go pro, there is no guarantee they are even successful at the collegiate level. They receive full tuition, free books, free housing, apparel, backpacks, free meal plans, and basically non prescription healthcare coverage. For about 300 athletes, their worth exceeds this value. They are worth millions and college did hold them back financially, with the tradeoff to that being that they got a head start on a free degree or are almost done with it. Now for every other college athlete they need that degree and will never be worth anything more than a potential successful alumni to the school. 

As for the money here is the problem. Athletes can receive money from boosters and companies for their image, great. Mike StudQB goes on recruiting visits. On the visits, the pitch isn't about the school or the facilities, it's about which booster has the biggest paycheck. Now Mike StudQB is making a decision based on money. When Mike StudQB gets to college and isn't the starter the endorsers drop their contract. Now Mike StudQB is looking for a new school that will pay him, now it has nothing to do with the education. What happens when Nike tells Joe StudRB that they'll give him more money and a shoe deal when he is the first pick in the NFL draft. But his stock is already thru the roof, just sit out the last 5 games because you can only get injured. Johnny Touchdowns will get a nice paycheck for the car dealership. They'll also set his mom up with a nice job if he attends the school of their choice and make 4 more commercial appearances. What happens when Andre All Star starts missing class to go to he mall for a poster signing and can't stay eligible, but likely won't be drafted this year? What happens when Zion tears thru a shoe and decides he doesn't like Nike anymore. Does he leave his school and go elsewhere? Do brands still get to pay to supply apparel for the schools? These are very lucrative deals for the institutions that supply the full scholarships and pay coaches. 

Athletes do not need a piece. Things are structured the way that they are so things like this do not happen. Athletes enter into contracts in which all the things listed (tuition, food, etc) are all supplied and the only rule is they must remain amateur. The other option is to not take the bad deal (college) and go pro in another country or league. That is capitalism, deciding your worth and getting your true value in the market. Not entering in a contract that explicitly states you can't make money and then complaining that you're broke. These kids know that the NCAA provides the biggest platform for them to raise their stock, they know that if they are injured for 3 straight years that they will have a degree to fall back on, which is why they pass up other options - because they are not as good. They can wait 3 years and take the big money because the CFL does not give them the platform to do that. If you want to blame somebody blame the NBA for not allowing kids to come out of HS. Blame the NFL for not having a minor league/developmental program. 

The only alternatives I see to athletes being able to profit is to forfeit the tuition and all the benefits and pay out of pocket. Gamble on yourself if you feel you're worth it. If the education is worthless for the top athletes then why don't they go to Australia for a year and make some money while waiting for the next NBA draft? Because they know they are one injury away from having no money and no education. 

 

You have a vivid imagination, my friend. May want to start writing fiction novels. Most of what you described already happens, btw.

Athletes transfer all the time anyway, so why would you be so wrapped around the axle about them transferring. Again, you are seeing this only in one light, that being corruption. Now, the way I see it, the most marketable athletes will be blue chip football and basketball players and Olympians. To say in a blanket way “athletes do not need a piece” I would reply: who the hell are you to say that? For some of these kids, they are the first in their families to attend college, let alone have a shot at a professional sports career. Some may come from a less than desirable socio-economic background. Here’s a great idea, let’s oppress them a little more, PABaseball. They are playing in college because they are either not good enough to go pro or are precluded from going pro due to rules designed to enrich the NCAA. The solution to this in your eyes is scholarship or endorsements, which to me is the WORST AND STUPIDIST approach to this! At this point, who do you think is going to step up to pay these kid’s tuition? BOOSTERS! At least there may be a way to make those agencies who may contract with the players to register through a process in which they agree to abide by a set of rules. Violate the rules? You can’t contract with an athlete. I don’t know, I am not an expert here...but what you seem to be wanting to perpetuate is the oppression of athletes who have the ability to earn from their fame...seems pretty elitist to me.

PABaseball posted:

They receive full tuition, free books, free housing, apparel, backpacks, free meal plans, and basically non prescription healthcare coverage.

I'd like to find the kid who got this deal because mine certainly didn't and I'm guessing most do not.

Iowamom23 posted:

PABaseball posted:

They receive full tuition, free books, free housing, apparel, backpacks, free meal plans, and basically non prescription healthcare coverage.

I'd like to find the kid who got this deal because mine certainly didn't and I'm guessing most do not.

85 members of the football team at your son's school. Another 13 of the 16 on the basketball team (one of which I believe is also a baseball player at the school).