• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

No longer slave owners

They’re not profiting from the thing they got for free - college tuition/room/and board. Their profiting from their individual talents.

They kind of are, though. They are profiting off of their athletic prowess, which is only on display due to the scholarships. It's not a hill I want to die on...and I've already admitted that it isn't double dipping. Besides, I don't have a dog in the fight anyways....I couldn't care less for college football, or professional for that matter.
 
They kind of are, though. They are profiting off of their athletic prowess, which is only on display due to the scholarships. It's not a hill I want to die on...and I've already admitted that it isn't double dipping. Besides, I don't have a dog in the fight anyways....I couldn't care less for college football, or professional for that matter.
What about the computer engineers that get recruited because they are a student at a prestigious university which they received a scholarship to attend? Should they have to work for free at google or amazon while in school? Or a student that gets a paid internship from a university sponsored job fair. The only way they could showcase their talent was because the school put on the job fair.
 
What about the computer engineers that get recruited because they are a student at a prestigious university which they received a scholarship to attend? Should they have to work for free at google or amazon while in school? Or a student that gets a paid internship from a university sponsored job fair. The only way they could showcase their talent was because the school put on the job fair.
I LITERALLY just said it's not double dipping. Like, you quoted the post in which I said that it wasn't. :doh:
 
I LITERALLY just said it's not double dipping. Like, you quoted the post in which I said that it wasn't. :doh:
?? I never mentioned double dipping at all. I was simply trying to compare the two scenarios, and was curious if anyone saw a difference in them compared to athlete scenarios that were being mentioned. Honest question because I'd like to know others' opinions.
 
I’m a huge fan of football. I used to be against allowing them to collect any kind of money. Now though, with all the time they have to devote to it and the year-round commitment , coupled with the NCAA’s complete hypocrisy, I’m all for them earning what they can.

I do find it quite hilarious that the people most against allowing grown men to get paid off their own name are - allegedly - libertarian free-market capitalist supporting types in all but this issue.
 
Speaking of misinformation. Lets start with the biggest one, that colleges will be responsible for compensating these players. This ruling is only about the use of player's likeness by 3rd party brands/entities. Next there's the scholarship part. You assume all these players are getting scholarships? A quick lookup of NCAA scholarships finds that only about 2% of student athletes get a scholarship. Even out of that 2% not all of them are FULL scholarships. So much for all that free room and board. Most of them have to come out of pocket or take out student loans. Unless your a star player. A good bit of the kids are walk-ons. Ever UGA's favorite kicker, Blankenship, was a walk on. He didn't get a scholarship until his sophomore year.

You're correct about 98% not going pro, so that 98% who don't get scholarships and also don't go pro, still had their name, image, likeness used for whatever.

Yes they will have access to the best trainers and doctors and coaches. You think that's all out of the goodness of the school's hearts? They are providing these because they want to produce a winning team. These guys put their health and bodies on the line for the school, I would expect them to have to provide the best care and training.

Yes the vast majority of revenue is from football programs. But the NCAA still brings in over a billion a year. Sure that's not all profit, but $1 billion in revenue is nothing to sneeze at. Yeah that poor NCAA only generating a billion a year off of these college athletes.

Schools are raking in tons of money from their athletic programs. The reason they aren't profitable is because they go overboard on their operating expenses. They spend tons of money on recruiting, paying the coaches absurd amounts of money for the college level, going all out on their stadiums, training facilities, etc. Auburn spent almost $14 million to have the biggest jumbotron in a college stadium. Completely unnecessary.

But yeah, at the end of the day people are just upset that EA Sports has to compensate those players whose likeness they use on the cover of the game that they'll make $100 million dollars off of. Or if Joe Blow sells his jersey to a fan for $500 bucks.

I thought EA sports argued they had paid for use of player likeness because they paid the NCAA. The game got shut down anyway because they didn’t and couldn’t pay players directly. In other words, EA sports paid the pimp to have a party with the hoo-ars but at some point Judgey McJudgerson said dem hoes ain’t got paid.
 
I thought EA sports argued they had paid for use of player likeness because they paid the NCAA. The game got shut down anyway because they didn’t and couldn’t pay players directly. In other words, EA sports paid the pimp to have a party with the hoo-ars but at some point Judgey McJudgerson said dem hoes ain’t got paid.
The most eloquent way to put it right here
 
  • Like
Reactions: GFB
No I get you're saying, but I think everyone is just blowing it out of proportion. This isn't a liberal I'm a victim argument.
If there is a "problem" that needs fixing, by definition there has to be a "victim". The liberals, as usual, have won the marketing.
Notice the title of this thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom