62. "an unpopular statement/question...." In response to In response to 0
(double posted here because this is probably the more appropriate post...)
for years when the conversation about paying college athletes has come up, my response has always been:
they kinda already are
past the whole "they get a scholarship" jazz (which I believed was faulty because for a large percentage the education was a sham) I always believed they get perks
the best housing (on campus) the best food (on campus) free books
and all the "outside" stuff (registration priority in classes, gear, girls, cars, free whatever else...)
does all this so-called-revelation not validate that perspective?
my argument was, historically, that even if you do legitimize the cash part by giving them a stipend, or some kinda kickback from licensed materials (allowing them to say maintain *some* level - if not all - of rights to their likeness or name) you would STILL have this additional, ancillary, economy
not saying the ncaa and the schools aren't getting over - because they definitely are, but how is that substantively different than the way it works pretty much everywhere else?
examples:
at my job, if I invent something related to the type of work done here while I'm their employee I get ZERO rights to it per the contract as a salaried employee (it'd be different if I was an independent contractor). and on top of that there are "non-compete" clauses that say I can't go work for a competitor of start a business that would put me in the same field
in the entertainment business, actors/actresses often lose the rights to their name or likeness if the appear in a role and toys or t-shirts are sold under the guise of "marketing" (or when they do get paid it's after recoup of said marketing costs)