ESPN has an article out on a topic that we had quite a conversation about here and that refuses to go away. And that is if, and to what extent may collegiate athletes receive compensation for trading on their names, images and likenesses (read signatures, names on gear and face time on media).
While the NCAA still announces its objection to outright pay for these extra athletic activities, there is at least one overturned court ruling that is in sympathy. To many of us, this may be another example of the loss of innocence in collegiate athletics. However, the elephant in the room is the ton weight of dollars generated by college athletes, whose present "pay" is a free ride with meals in exchange for their "labor", a term which I use very loosely.
A conversation on this topic generally starts with the gratitude and thanks that athletes should be content with who receive free rides and a college degree. We've heard this argument before, but it seems that it hasn't been persuasive enough to convince the NCAA to stop there. Nor is it convincing with respect to the one and done BB athletes who
were never in it for a degree to begin with. Or the three and out FB guys.
It's complicated.
The devil, as always is in the details, but it seems fair that funds generated by schools profiting by selling products associated with popular players put a little away in an earmarked account until graduation, as a mere suggestion.
There is also another issue that relates to appearances by players in "unassociated" activity, such as "Dancing Withe the Stars" which permitted a Notre Dame athlete to participate.
In any event, the issue was dormant for a while until its importance was just recently taken up once again. The camel has again stuffed his nose under the tent, never mind the elephant in the room.
While the NCAA still announces its objection to outright pay for these extra athletic activities, there is at least one overturned court ruling that is in sympathy. To many of us, this may be another example of the loss of innocence in collegiate athletics. However, the elephant in the room is the ton weight of dollars generated by college athletes, whose present "pay" is a free ride with meals in exchange for their "labor", a term which I use very loosely.
A conversation on this topic generally starts with the gratitude and thanks that athletes should be content with who receive free rides and a college degree. We've heard this argument before, but it seems that it hasn't been persuasive enough to convince the NCAA to stop there. Nor is it convincing with respect to the one and done BB athletes who
were never in it for a degree to begin with. Or the three and out FB guys.
It's complicated.
The devil, as always is in the details, but it seems fair that funds generated by schools profiting by selling products associated with popular players put a little away in an earmarked account until graduation, as a mere suggestion.
There is also another issue that relates to appearances by players in "unassociated" activity, such as "Dancing Withe the Stars" which permitted a Notre Dame athlete to participate.
In any event, the issue was dormant for a while until its importance was just recently taken up once again. The camel has again stuffed his nose under the tent, never mind the elephant in the room.
Last edited:
