3 ms·
>It simply allows athletes to make money from their own brand. Not sure how anyone can be against this. Indeed. I'm not necessarily opposed to amateur sports
by navigatesol 7y ago
>It simply allows athletes to make money from their own brand. Not sure how anyone can be against this.
Indeed. I'm not necessarily opposed to amateur sports remaining "amateur" (whatever that looks like). But the fact that these athletes aren't allowed to make money from their likeness on their personal social media accounts is preposterous.
Trying to go pro is not easy. Most people dedicate their entire young lives to the effort and end up with nothing to show for it.
- LanceH 7y agoI understand what you're saying about being able to market your own brand. A serious question, though, "Who is truly building that brand?" In many respects, it is the NCAA and member schools which are making the athlete famous and marketable. It is rarely talent alone which makes the athlete's marketability so valuable. Put the best quarterback at Alabama and Wyoming and which is more valuable? Should Alabama be allowed to negotiate a cut upon acceptance? What if they are the best collegiate 10k women's runner? Their fame is at least partially built by the league itself. Another issue is the collusion of the NFL and NCAA to establish dual monopolies over the same sport. My personal opinion on the NCAA is that it is all corrupt and it should be burned to the ground.
- Donald 7y agoCorrect. The university also provides tremendous support in media training and publicity garnering. For example, when you see a media interview blitz for a Heisman candidate - that's certainly not being organized by the 20 year old athlete. It will be interesting to see the schools strong-arm athletes into giving a revenue cut.