|
|
|
|
|
|
by Agustus
2448 days ago
|
|
|
We have an interesting societal conundrum here. Student athletes are below college material for specific sports (college football being a great example). If we do not allow the footballers in, then they would not be at the college, however, by allowing these sub par students into the college based on a need from the college, they are effectively subsidizing their educational capabilities to maintain NCAA eligibility (athletes at colleges have a different support system than us “normies.” With dedicated staff for tutoring, transportation, food, and housing). There can be a case made for the NCAA paying out more than living wages to these athletes while they are there. What will be fun is to figure out how California is going to implement this wild hared idea if the sport is not profitable: looking at you water polo. The athletes are playing and doing similar workout regimens as the football, yet no pay... what do you do with this. What about Title IX discrimination when the men’s football gets monies while the ladies do not. |
|
|
The law does not require the sport to pay anything more, this removes the "you may not use your own likeness" rule as being bad for the players.
The new change does not apply to anything they do on-field and it only starts in 2023, so it will definitely change decisions for college admissions.
This does not add any significant burden to the sport organizers, except they lost their captive monopoly on the athletes appearing in a commercial.
Right to negotiate for yourself is a big one.