The NCAA announced guidelines this week to allow college athletes to profit from use of their name, image and likeness, opening the gate for amateurs to cash in on sports through endorsements while still in school. Is this just a booster bonanza that puts some legal juice in a recruiting pitch? Will the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s decision preempt efforts by state and federal lawmakers to permit pay for play? Will the new regime, set to start no later than January 2021, require female athletes to receive equal pay for equal work?
Explore the entire archive of Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott.
Listen to Audio Version
Listen to audio versions of all episodes of Right Angle and Bill Whittle Now on your podcast app:
7 replies on “Booster Bonanza: NCAA Rules Amateur Athletes Can Cash In on College Sports”
Paying athletes will result in a further stratification of haves and have nots. Even bench players could be making bank at major schools.
I’m not saying that I disagree with the idea, however.
If you promise a recruit that he can charge $10 an autograph, an Alabama or Ohio State can wrap paying fans around the block. Some could drop a grand, even. Money could be flowing like a RAP music video.
The reason that I could be brought along with this idea is because this could save football. The path towards massive lawsuits on behalf of chronic brain injury victims has been laid out. You could easily paint a picture of the rich using poor, black children for their entertainment, not caring that the athlete’s brains are paying for the chance.
Bill, how do you square the circle that many of these kids are offered scholarships because otherwise they couldn’t afford the college education, yet once they are paid, they are making enough that they really shouldn’t qualify for scholarships?
Female athletes would get paid less for a sponsorship just like football linemen will get paid less than the quarterback or star wide receiver.
Track stars will probably get more money from a shoe store than a random football guy will from a random car dealership.
The Wisconsin legislature is also discussing (haven’t proposed yet) this kind of legislation and some of the people interviewed point out how pianists can go play a concert and get paid, but didn’t make the point Bill did that a pianist won’t sprain a wrist and lose a career.
I really think the NCAA should just split off and become a minor league for the national teams, pay the athletes straight up, and if someone wants to work and go to school they can. That would also eliminate the whole “NCAA making money off the backs of students” and the “they get a free education, they aren’t paid nothing” situations. If someone wants to play a game, save money and then go to school when they get injured or are cut for lack of skill, they’ve got their education already paid for. Tax free with a 529 plan.
it has been severely trampled, but sounds like expo facto should be in effect here … Just sayin’
Cuz editing is my job in real life, let me offer you ex post facto, Latin for “after the fact”. With kindness.
I’m sorry, but you lost me…. My post was not very clear I guess… paying players after the rule change was my point… therefore , after the fact… this I understand.. little confused about your reply… with kindness… just sayin’
It is either a genuine free market or it isn’t. If it isn’t, the actual results will ALWAYS be worse than for a truly free market. Specifically because in a free market both parties in a trade come out ahead or the deal won’t be made. If it isn’t a free market, there will be losers and winners selected by a third party who has made no contribution to the deal other than forcing the deal on the winner and loser.
My position is that, if you are not a contributing partner in the deal, you have absolutely NO say in the matter. You can take your so called social justice stake holder claim and cram it where the sun don’t shine!