(09-28-2019 12:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  You know I look at college football. A program like Texas A&M who hasn't accomplished anything in years. However, they still can put 90,000 people in seats. 30,000 of those people probably buy overpriced food and beer. Many seats sell for hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Games are on national television and local radio. The team/school sells merchandise. Local businesses donate and advertise as the team brings them business.

Then I look at the NFL. The largest NFL stadiums are only about 82k. The majority seats around 69k at capacity. NFL games are arguably less available than college games done on Saturday. And merchandise/food sales are comparable to college.

Difference?

Tua right now is worth....a scholarships to by college standards, a very affordable school. In a few weeks he is worth Millions of dollars a year.

Why?

Schools and head coaches are getting rich while these kids get nothing but a scholarships. And before anyone says "they get an education" so does everyone else...but thosands-millions of get loans, grants, and scholarships. And can still work if they want to. They can sell their likeliness. People can give them money.

So why is this double standard for athletes so supported? The schools profit of them and keep the profit.

Honestly—while I prefer the current amateur model—I’m not completely opposed to the players getting compensated. However—my preference is that is done in a way that pays all players equally (sort of like EA Games settlement). The schools could largely support the cost by selling the annual video game rights. You can run it through the NCAA and the schools could make up any shortfalls via their annual NCAA dues—thus allowing individual schools to avoid the employer/employee relationship. That keeps the payment equal, keeps control of paying the players in the hands of the sport (not the boosters), and largely prevents massive disruptions in the system (including unintended consequences).