https://www.npr.org/2019/10/29/774439078/ncaa-starts-process-to-allow-compensation-for-college-athletes

In a surprise move, the NCAA says it intends to allow college athletes to earn compensation — but it says it's only starting to work out the details of how that would take place. The organization's board of governors said Tuesday that it had voted unanimously to permit student-athletes to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness.

"We must embrace change to provide the best possible experience for college athletes," said Michael Drake, the NCAA board chair who is also president of Ohio State University. In a statement, Drake stressed the need for "additional flexibility" in the NCAA's approach.

Drake added, "This modernization for the future is a natural extension of the numerous steps NCAA members have taken in recent years to improve support for student-athletes, including full cost of attendance and guaranteed scholarships."

The timeline for implementing the changes was not immediately clear in the NCAA's statement.

The NCAA, the national governing body for collegiate athletics, said its decision followed input over the past few months from "current and former student-athletes, coaches, presidents, faculty and commissioners across all three divisions."

Notably, the decision follows California's adoption of a law that bans schools in the state from preventing student-athletes from accepting compensation from advertisers and allows them to hire agents. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the legislation late last month, calling it the "beginning of a national movement."

Indeed, it did spark a trend. Politicians in Illinois, New York, Florida and other states have introduced bills allowing endorsement deals for college athletes. And days after the California bill was signed, national politicians signaled they would push for something similar in Congress.

Amid this groundswell of political support for paying college athletes, the NCAA has quickly eased its public resistance to the idea. After initially pushing back hard on California's measure, the NCAA has recently been taking a more conciliatory tone, suggesting it would "move forward with ongoing efforts to make adjustments" to the organization's practices.

The NCAA has reported annual revenues topping $1 billion, largely on the strength of TV rights and marketing fees connected with its most prominent sports and events, such as the highly lucrative Division 1 men's basketball tournament.

And though the organization long argued that it was converting those revenues into scholarships and other opportunities for students, that line had lately attracted prominent skeptics — such as NFL cornerback Richard Sherman and NBA superstar LeBron James, who hosted Newsom's signing ceremony on his sports programming company la st month.

"As a national governing body, the NCAA is uniquely positioned to modify its rules to ensure fairness and a level playing field for student-athletes," organization President Mark Emmert said in a statement Tuesday. "The board's action today creates a path to enhance opportunities for student-athletes while ensuring they compete against students and not professionals."

_______________________________________

free and clear.

https://twitter.com/SenatorBurr/status/1189262863552208896
--------
If college athletes are going to make money off their likenesses while in school, their scholarships should be treated like income. I’ll be introducing legislation that subjects scholarships given to athletes who choose to “cash in” to income taxes.
--------


damn at this reply:
https://twitter.com/ggreeneva/status/1189272501303545859
--------
Give a Black person the money they're due, and all of a sudden this Republican supports raising taxes.
--------

There's no logic to it other then MAD

_______________________________________

for college students who make money off their name/likeness as influencers with podcasts, youtube channels, paid social media posts, etc?

we know what this is about.

..what person in their right mind would choose a scholarship (complete with a full list of limitations/regulations) over getting paid?


*skatin' the rings of saturn*


..and miles to go before i sleep...

.

_______________________________________

just shooting from the hip...i would think the overwhelming majority of athletes would be in that position.

theres really no legal reason not to have both. the school is paying for your attendance/labor/service (which you earned). other people are paying you for your labor/service (like any other work-eligible american citizen).

I agree with this decision. I think that there should be no barriers preventing anyone from getting paid for their work.

But this will only really impact a select few NCAA athletes, right? The third string tight end at Boise State isn't going to getting big bucks of his likeness. Neither is the back up point guard at Ohio State. Neither is the star of the golf, field hockey, or tennis team.

Only the few names that ring bells are going to be cashing in on this.
So I'm all for it. I just don't see it changing much in the college athletic landscape.

Or am I missing a big piece of the puzzle?

_______________________________________

never attempted to approach it from an informed/educated/proactive standpoint.

so they fearmonger, slippery slope fallacy, threaten excessive reactionary/retributive measures, etc.

aka what they always do when some progressive action disrupts the status quo.

>never attempted to approach it from an
>informed/educated/proactive standpoint.
>
>so they fearmonger, slippery slope fallacy, threaten excessive
>reactionary/retributive measures, etc.
>
>aka what they always do when some progressive action disrupts
>the status quo.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

... I'd think any athlete whose name is in that game would benefit from the profits.

Obviously the more popular players are the only ones who will benefit from jersey sales, and that sort of thing for the most part.



>I agree with this decision. I think that there should be no
>barriers preventing anyone from getting paid for their work.
>
>But this will only really impact a select few NCAA athletes,
>right? The third string tight end at Boise State isn't going
>to getting big bucks of his likeness. Neither is the back up
>point guard at Ohio State. Neither is the star of the golf,
>field hockey, or tennis team.
>
>Only the few names that ring bells are going to be cashing in
>on this.
>So I'm all for it. I just don't see it changing much in the
>college athletic landscape.
>
>Or am I missing a big piece of the puzzle?

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

Like local ads and appearances etc? Small school fans like to buy jerseys too. It could have a wider impact than just those big name big school big sport athletes, though granted they would likely benefit the most.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/dont-be-fooled-by-empty-rhetoric-the-ncaa-isnt-going-to-change-voluntarily/2019/10/29/0988dfcc-fa9a-11e9-8906-ab6b60de9124_story.html

Don’t be fooled by empty rhetoric: The NCAA isn’t going to change voluntarily
By
Sally Jenkins
Columnist
Oct. 29, 2019 at 5:59 p.m. CDT

The NCAA’s latest move is all wind and stall. It’s nothing more than an attempt to slow down the landslide, one that will bury the current leaders to the point of extinction. Look closely at the NCAA’s supposed grand concession to allow college athletes the rights over their own names and likenesses, and note that it contains zero specifics, an almost infinite number of potential restrictions, and doesn’t actually say anything about money. It’s the organization’s classic signature, that blowhardy nothingness.

The exact wording of the NCAA board of governors’ announcement is the giveaway. Each NCAA division is directed to “consider updates to relevant bylaws and policies for the 21st century” that would eventually allow athletes to “benefit” from their own names and images, so long as they do so “in a manner consistent with the collegiate model.” What on earth do all those soft words mean? Here’s what they don’t mean: anything imminent. Or concrete. Or real. What they do mean is that the NCAA is in a panic over a raft of legislation that would make their current piratical rules illegal.

As matters stand, the NCAA denies athletes their natural economic rights, and hijacks their names, images and likenesses for financial gain. Ohio State’s Chase Young is a bondsman who may not sign his own autograph for money or endorse a Columbus car dealership. Rather, the money generated by his talent, celebrity and image will continue to go to pay the $600,000 salary for some mid-level associate athletic director, and other cronies.

What member of a university marching band is told that they must not profit from the trumpet so long as they’re at the university? What member of a school orchestra is told they better not play their violin for money, or they’ll lose the right to perform? What young actress or actor is told they can’t appear in a play or a film for pay, at peril of being labelled “dirty” and a “cheat?” The NCAA has fundamentally violated the rights of scores of athletes by forcing them into a separate and unequal class of citizens. So, the NCAA’s announcement that it has “started the process” to “enhance” athletes’ ability to own what never should have been taken from them in the first place is not cause for congratulation.

Look closely at the NCAA’s verbiage and you will find buried in it some key phrases that show just how desperately its leaders are to delay, and to hang on to its ravening economic system. “Compensation” for anything related to “athletics performance” will still be “impermissible” — for everyone except seven-figure athletic directors, of course. Athletes will be able to benefit only from “collegiate” rather than “professional” opportunities — whatever that means. Question: Does a lemonade stands count as collegiate or professional?

In other words, the NCAA still will forbid athletes from actually making any money — unless it’s such a small and paltry amount of loose change that it’s not worth bothering over.

“The board’s action today creates a path to enhance opportunities for student-athletes while ensuring they compete against students and not professionals,” NCAA President Mark Emmert droned.

Create a path? The path was already there, created by legislators because the NCAA was so recalcitrant on this issue. California passed the Fair Pay to Play Act in September over the NCAA’s baying protest, and Florida is right on its heels. California’s law, set to take effect in 2023, would prohibit schools from punishing athletes for exercising their basic commercial rights. A dozen other states are considering similar laws. Then there is the federal measure proposed by Congressman Mark Walker, that would strip the NCAA of its tax-exempt status if it continues to restrict the use of athletes’ name, image and likeness. Walker is trying to get the bill to a vote so it can take effect next year.

The NCAA is not trying to open a path for athletes, it’s trying to kick dirt over one.

The only reason the board of governors took this vote was because their position is utterly unsustainable. It’s simply a bid to appease lawmakers, and try to regain the reins of the rule-change process before they are legislated out of existence in their current form.

It would be purely a mistake to allow this manipulation to work. Lawmakers should keep the pressure on the NCAA, and hard, because unrelenting legal force is the only thing that revenue-bloated body has ever responded to.

Let up now, and the NCAA will spend years upon years holding “working groups,” which will issue “recommendations” which will result in “proposals” which will then be referred to subcommittees. And the only thing that will come from any of it is more buzzwordy blather about “models.” Meantime, the rake off will continue and the kids who sweat to generate all the money will watch vainly as they are robbed of their natural rights over their own names, as well as the true value of their scholarship.

The NCAA has had years to make rules that genuinely benefit their “student-athletes.” They have refused, except at the point of a legal threat. What we need now are laws.

and will cause jealousy.

Umm, we already have that now with boosters playing the best players on the low

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

They'll end up winning, of course. But on flimsy grounds.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

I'd market myself as the 'human victory cigar'...If I'm in, it's a win.

I'd get Perez-Carrillo or Bolivar to pay me $5000K to do cigar motion every time I ran into a game.

Then I'd snowball that with wacky T-shirts of me being the victory cigar and brand the hell out of it.

Bank for 4yrs and parlay that into a marketing deal/company or something.

Scrubs would have options...now they just get to be jealous for free.

____________

Question before the court: Is it legal for the NCAA to place limits on what athletes can earn in compensation. Seems like this is a toss up based on the judges' chatter

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/983139101/supreme-court-weighs-whether-ncaa-is-illegally-fixing-athlete-compensation

As March Madness heads into its final days, college athletes are playing on a different kind of court: the Supreme Court. On Wednesday the justices heard arguments in a case testing whether the NCAA's limits on compensation for student athletes violate the nation's antitrust laws.

The players contend that the NCAA is operating a system that is a classic restraint of competition in violation of the federal laws barring price fixing in markets, including the labor market.

There is little doubt that big-time college sports is a big business. For March Madness TV rights alone, the NCAA is paid $1.1 billion each year. But the NCAA maintains that the antitrust law allows it to impose certain limits on athlete compensation in order to preserve what the NCAA contends is the essence of college sports' popularity: namely amateurism.

The case before the court stems from an appeals court ruling that ordered the NCAA to broaden the education-related benefits available to college athletes. The NCAA objected and appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that it should be left alone to decide athlete compensation. What makes collegiate play attractive to consumers, says the collegiate sports governing body, is that there is no "pay for play."

Chief Justice John Roberts, however, pointed out loopholes that seem to undermine that principle. For example, under current NCAA rules, schools can pay the $50,000 insurance premium for a $10 million policy that protects the student athlete's future earnings in the case of injury.

"That sounds very much like pay for play," he said. "Doesn't that undermine the 'amateur status' theory you have?"

Justice Clarence Thomas, a big football fan, noted that the NCAA has "put a lot of weight on amateurism," but, he asked, "Is there a similar focus on the compensation to coaches?"

There used to be, replied lawyer Seth Waxman, representing the NCAA, until, the coaches challenged earning limits in court and won.

Justice Stephen Breyer asked Waxman what precisely the NCAA is complaining about. Waxman replied by warning that what is now permitted as special rewards for athlete performance could become the norm. Under the lower court's ruling, he contended, the NCAA "cannot restrain schools from awarding to every Division I athlete, just for being on the team, $5,980 per year, God help us." That, he added, "is nothing but pay for play."

That $5,980 number is the amount in rings, trophies and cash that, under current NCAA rules, may be awarded to athletes for performance in high-level competition, like the championship bowls.

Justice Samuel Alito seemed skeptical, pointing to briefs filed by the NFL, NBA and WNBA professional players associations. Alito said they paint "a pretty stark picture" of colleges "really exploiting the students that they recruit."

While the athletes' work is bringing in billions of dollars, they have a pretty "hard life," said Alito. Training requirements leave little time for study, there's pressure to drop out of hard majors, and the graduation rates are "shockingly low."

Summing up the players argument, Alito said "they are recruited, they're used up, and then they're cast aside without even a college degree. So they say, how can this be defended in the name of amateurism?"

Justice Elena Kagan too seemed doubtful about the NCAA's argument that it is protecting not just its business but the athletes.

"The way you talk about amateurism, it sounds awfully high-minded," she said. "But schools that are naturally competitors ... have all gotten together in an organization" and they use the power of that organization "to fix athletic salaries at extremely low levels."

Justice Neil Gorsuch said that in his view the agreement at the center of the case is "an agreement among competitors to fix prices" in the labor market.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to agree. "It does seem that the schools are conspiring with competitors ... to pay no salaries to the workers who are making the schools billions of dollars," he said.

And Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a former professor at sports powerhouse Notre Dame, asked why the NCAA "gets to define what pay is?"

But when it came time for the athletes' lawyers to make their argument, they faced just as much skepticism.

Chief Justice Roberts suggested the lower court may have overstepped by seeking to "micromanage" the NCAA's business, comparing the lower court's actions to a Jenga game.

"You've got this nice solid block that protects the sort of product the schools want to provide, and you pull out one log and then another and everything's fine, then another and another, and all of a sudden the whole thing comes comes crashing down," said Roberts.

Justice Breyer, too, was concerned about what would happen if judges started "getting into the business of deciding how amateur sports should be run."

"This is not an ordinary product," he said, his voice rising. "This is an effort to bring into the world something that's brought joy and all kinds of things to millions and millions of people. and it's only partly economic."

"This is a delicate area," opined Justice Barrett. "On the one hand, there's concern about blowing up the NCAA. ... But on the other hand, the court must be concerned over not "messing up" general antitrust law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was more direct: "How do we know that we're not just destroying the game as it exists?" she asked.

And Justice Kagan, apparently spooked by the NCAA's argument that it might have to pay every athlete nearly $5,980, asked whether the lower court had not just taken that figure "out of thin air." Isn't the number, asked Kagan, "essentially arbitrary?"

But acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar pushed back on behalf of the Biden administration, which is supporting the athletes. She said there is nothing in the lower court order that prevents the NCAA from establishing criteria for payments with benchmarks to ensure that theses are not pay-for-play arrangements.

By the time the buzzer sounded after nearly two hours of argument, it was anyone's guess how the court would rule.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

.

...I'm from the era when A.I. was the answer, now they think ai is the answer - Marlon Craft

How much was Jalen Suggs' Final Four shot worth? 'Millions,' experts say
Yahoo Sports
PETE THAMEL
April 4, 2021, 11:01 PM
INDIANAPOLIS – Gonzaga point guard Jalen Suggs’ 40-foot buzzer-beater to top UCLA on Saturday night in the Final Four provided a generational moment for the NCAA tournament. It electrified Twitter, prompted countless TikTok re-enactments and will live forever in highlight reels.

As college athletics and the NCAA tournament sit on the precipice of unprecedented change in the next year, Suggs’ shot raises a new question for the collegiate sporting landscape: How much is a moment like that worth? And how could the next epic buzzer-beater be monetized as NCAA sports are on the cusp of an era of athletes being allowed to profit off their Name, Image and Likeness?

That question will be ushered to the forefront next year as the NCAA, Supreme Court and countless politicians attempt to figure out just how college athletes will be able to take advantage of their NIL. While the details are still unclear, leaders around college athletics expect by next season there will be some sort of way that high-profile athletes like Suggs can capitalize off their signature moments.

So how much is a 40-foot buzzer-beater to clinch a spot in the national title game and keep alive a perfect season worth? And what could the heroes of the 2022 men’s and women’s Final Fours be receiving in compensation?

“It’s not an immediate turn,” said Zach Soskin, the co-founder of Voltage Management, which works with athletes and brand consulting. “But over the course of life, this is worth millions of dollars.”

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA - APRIL 03: Jalen Suggs #1 of the Gonzaga Bulldogs shoots a game-winning three point basket in overtime to defeat the UCLA Bruins 93-90 during the 2021 NCAA Final Four semifinal at Lucas Oil Stadium on April 03, 2021 in Indianapolis, Indiana. (Photo by Jamie Squire/Getty Images)
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA - APRIL 03: Jalen Suggs #1 of the Gonzaga Bulldogs shoots a game-winning three point basket in overtime to defeat the UCLA Bruins 93-90 during the 2021 NCAA Final Four semifinal at Lucas Oil Stadium on April 03, 2021 in Indianapolis, Indiana. (Photo by Jamie Squire/Getty Images)
Considering the lack of clarity from the NCAA, which has resisted this issue for years instead of enable it, it’s difficult to estimate concisely. But it’s certain that the moment would be lucrative both instantly and later on down the road.

“It’s really impossible to measure the value, but it elevates him for the rest of his life,” Soskin said. “Obviously, Jalen Suggs isn’t Zion , but he enters the league as a bigger star than Anthony Edwards . The average American sports fan just didn’t know who was before Saturday night. Now he’s a hero.”

And those instant heroes will soon be entering a fascinating new world that’s shrouded in optimism, uncertainty and some concern for how different things will look.

How athletes could profit off big moments
It’s fitting to view the future of Name, Image and Likeness through two of the biggest stars in this year’s men’s and women’s NCAA tournament. The fact that Jalen Suggs and UConn’s Paige Bueckers are close friends from their native Minnesota just happens to be a coincidence.

There are two ways to view potential sponsorship deals for both, which is instructive as to where college athletics is going. There’s the ability to profit instantly off an iconic moment, and leveraging collegiate success for long-term relationships with brands.

Let’s start with Suggs, who just experienced a rare NCAA moment that combined an impossible buzzer-beater, undefeated season and the elevated stage of the Final Four. How much could he profit off that in the next 48 hours before the title game tips off? Could Bank of America, for example, want to capitalize off of the bank shot?

“I bet a company would pay six figures for him today because he’s so hot,” said Peter Miller, the founder of the Jabez marketing group, who works with pro athletes like Dak Prescott.

But Miller stressed that the long-term view is going to be more important than the short-term view. Suggs has 404,000 Instagram followers as of Sunday night. He has 28,000 followers on Twitter. Neither of those social channels mentioned his moment as of Sunday night, but plenty did that work for him. LeBron James, Kevin Love, Dwyane Wade, Lonzo Ball and nearly every prominent Gonzaga basketball alum tweeted about his shot.

Miller said that if he were negotiating for Suggs, he’d advise him not to do anything imminently. Much of the long-term value for Suggs will be amplified or diminished depending on whether Gonzaga wins or loses on Monday. It’s not like he could film a commercial for Gatorade on Sunday and it’d air during the game. “The problem is that his window is so tight,” Miller said. “If they lose against Baylor tomorrow night, it’s all forgotten. If they win, 10 years from now, people will think that shot won the tournament.”

So what’s the value of a Final Four run to a player? In many ways, UConn’s Bueckers may be able to accumulate more sponsors because of her larger following — 790,000 Instagram followers — and the platform afforded by UConn’s juggernaut women’s team.

“I think there’s a decent chance that Paige makes more money than any college athlete next year,” Soskin said. He added that Iowa women’s phenom Caitlin Clark “may not be far behind” and that both of their presence in college basketball next year will elevate the eyeballs on that sport.

“One of the biggest misconceptions early on in the NIL conversation was that it’ll only be a factor for men,” Soskin said. “Two years ago, Sabrina Ionescu would have out-earned all of the men’s players. Next year, Paige probably will.”

UConn's Paige Bueckers (left) reacts during her team's loss to the Arizona Wildcats in the Final Four of the 2021 NCAA women's basketball tournament on April 02. (Carmen Mandato/Getty Images)
UConn's Paige Bueckers (left) reacts during her team's loss to the Arizona Wildcats in the Final Four of the 2021 NCAA women's basketball tournament on April 02. (Carmen Mandato/Getty Images)
So how can these athletes make money?

Blake Lawrence, the CEO and co-founder of Opendorse, rattles off all the ways athletes — both stars and role players — could end up profiting. He says to imagine Capital One — or any official sponsor — paying players for selfies, TikToks and Instagram stories. Could breakout stars do Cameo videos? Could stars do their own news conference on Twitch, with “fans ‘tipping’ them to show support?” (Imagine the volume of “tips” from grateful – and potentially overserved – Zags fans if Suggs went on Twitch after the game late Saturday.)


AdChoices
There there’s the local restaurants/bar, car dealerships and memorabilia stores in the college towns that could draw big business form a player appearance. Or could a player sign their game-worn shoes from a star performance and sell them?

Lawrence estimates the “ceiling” for a high-end player like Bueckers or Suggs would be about $175,000 for the NCAA tournament. (This estimate came before Suggs’ shot, which would clearly be an amplifier.)

What about everyone else?

“On the low end, $10,000 could be earned by nearly every Final Four player through a combination ,” Lawrence said. “On the high end, the breakout stars of the tournament could earn more than $100,000.”

How will it work?
Baylor athletic director Mack Rhoades has been bubbled with the Bears for nearly a month here in Indianapolis. He admits that one year from now, he has no idea what the NCAA tournament or College Football Playoff will look like from the chair of the athletic director.

Part of the ambiguity comes with the lack of guidance from the NCAA at how such a drastic change will work. An aura of mystery still hangs over the actual execution of how players will handle sponsorships. Will there be, for example, an hour of sponsor time built in after the media availability? Are brands going to have creative teams at the College Football Playoff or Final Four to help the players produce content for advertisements? How will the ability of players to make money intersect with practices, film and team meals?

“I think uncertainty always makes us cautious, probably nervous,” Rhoades said in a phone interview on Sunday. “We all want to control a situation. It’s hard to control something we don’t have a clear pathway for yet. I think we all believe we’ll get to the other end of this, and we’ll hopefully end in a good spot for our institutions and student-athletes. But yeah, it’s a little bit unnerving not knowing which direction we’re headed.”

What’s had administrators further unnerved is the combination of the unknown NIL rules with the expected passage of the one-time transfer rules in the upcoming months. There are already more than 1,000 players in the NCAA transfer portal for basketball because of the expected passage of the rules.

“College athletics is going to change here in the next 12 to 24 months more than it's changed in the last 10 years,” Rhoades said. “Or it sure feels like it.”

Gonzaga's Jalen Suggs shoots a game-winning 3-pointer in overtime to defeat UCLA in the NCAA Final Four on Saturday. (Tim Nwachukwu/Getty Images)
Gonzaga's Jalen Suggs shoots a game-winning 3-pointer in overtime to defeat UCLA in the NCAA Final Four on Saturday. (Tim Nwachukwu/Getty Images)
Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick told Yahoo Sports that the one-time transfer rule will have more of an impact on how teams are built and how the Final Four will look in the future than the NIL legislation. The ability to transfer without losing playing time is going to annually reshape rosters, as we’re seeing. And while specifics of how NIL will be legislated haven’t been determined, there’s a general sense of how it will look.

“We’ve understood for a while that’s what it’s going to be,” Swarbrick said. “You just have to be OK with it.”

For Skyy Clark, a top-10 recruit in the class of 2022 who is committed to Kentucky, the future is filled with both promise and mystery. He’s a potential breakout star in the 2022-23 college basketball season, and that means his family is exploring new avenues as they wait to see what NIL legislation looks like.

Clark has played grassroots ball with Bronny James, which has helped elevate his Instagram following to 252,000. And his family is beginning to consider how they can take advantage of that.

“We're just trying to be as proactive as possible,” Clark’s father, Kenny, said. “I've been talking to various marketing groups and stuff just trying to prepare for it so we can hit the ground running.”

The lesson from Suggs’ shot to future generations may be in the deft way he handled the moment. He celebrated with unrelenting vigor and then described the play with an authenticity and genuineness, reflecting back to being a kid shooting on his mini-hoop in a way that made him likable and relatable.

“He handled the moment so well,” Soskin said. “It gave him a platform to show who he was, for people to say, ‘This kid is great.’”

And that platform, in the near future, will bring with it a lot of value.

(Krysten Peek contributed to this story.)
America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

Previously the NCAA put a $5000 cap on what schools could provide athletes for educational things outside of basic tuition, room and board. Things like laptops, tutoring, study abroad, etc.
This ruling says they can't put a cap on these educational benefits.

Kavanaugh seems to want to blow the doors off the whole thing (and I completely agree with him). Maybe next time:

Kavanaugh: "The NCAA nonetheless asserts that its compensation
rules are procompetitive because those rules help define the
product of college sports. Specifically, the NCAA says that
colleges may decline to pay student athletes because the defining feature of college sports, according to the NCAA, is
that the student athletes are not paid.

In my view, that argument is circular and unpersuasive.
The NCAA couches its arguments for not paying student
athletes in innocuous labels. But the labels cannot disguise
the reality: The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the
restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’
wages on the theory that “customers prefer” to eat food from
low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’
salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a “love
of the law.” Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income
in order to create a “purer” form of helping the sick. News
organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters
to preserve a “tradition” of public-minded journalism.
Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera
crews to kindle a “spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood.
Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor."



https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-says-ncaa-can-t-limit-some-benefits-student-n1271592

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that the National Collegiate Athletic Association went too far in blocking some education-related aid for student athletes, a decision that comes as college athletics struggles with the issue of how to preserve its amateur status.

The court said the NCAA violated antitrust laws when it limited the amount students could receive for musical instruments, scientific equipment, postgraduate scholarships, tutoring, academic awards and paid internships.

Writing for the court, Justice Neil Gorsuch said a lower court's injunction is consistent with established antitrust principles.

The ruling did not, however, address the contentious issue of whether student athletes can be paid. The NCAA said it would consider this month whether student athletes can be compensated for the use of their names and images, which could allow them to benefit from endorsements and social media marketing.

_______________________________________

Like the NCAA should be quaking in its boots and doing everything it can to keep this issue out of the courts.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*