Tobacco Road
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 3,864
- Reaction score
- 728
Not surprised to see the reff blaming the black athlete for industries run by white men. Definitely, the black guys fault.
Not surprised to see the reff blaming the black athlete for industries run by white men. Definitely, the black guys fault.
So they are both exploiting children. Just because one person makes more than another doesn't mean that they are not both exploiting someone or, in the case of China, indirectly supporting human rights abuses with their silence.
So they are both exploiting children. Just because one person makes more than another doesn't mean that they are not both exploiting someone or, in the case of China, indirectly supporting human rights abuses with their silence.
He types from his MacBook.
So why single out the Black millionaire for “making billions” over the actual billionaires?
As soon as schools start giving "additional education related benefits" to male athletes and don't provide like benefits for female athletes, there will be Title IX lawsuits.
Probably best solution is for colleges to not get involved in additional benefits, but not prevent outside entities from compensating athletes. I was entertaining the idea of a party where the athletes meet donors, but that seems really sketchy
Well, Lebron is out screaming about human rights in one country while remaining silent about China because he knows he will lose money. He won't lose money here for being critical of things in the U.S.
It’s almost like he has more to say about the country he grew up in and calls home instead of a country he visits sometimes for business. Weird.
Does it bother you more that he screams about human rights in the US or that he doesn’t say much about China? Take your time to reflect on that question.
Probably best solution is for colleges to not get involved in additional benefits, but not prevent outside entities from compensating athletes. I was entertaining the idea of a party where the athletes meet donors, but that seems really sketchy
I agree with this as a solution. Don't directly pay revenue sports athletes, which would harm the non-revenue athletes, but let them profit off their likeness or from other outside sources.
Where are we in the Name, Image and Likeness process?
On Saturday, The Athletic obtained a draft of the NCAA’s interim NIL policy. The policy will allow college athletes in all states to monetize their NIL as of July 1. Essentially, the policy will ensure that athletes who “engage in an NIL activity” — sponsorships, endorsements, camps, etc. — are not ruled ineligible by the NCAA. Athletes in states with state NIL laws can follow those laws. Athletes in other states will be able to follow NIL policies set by their schools.
The policy is expected to be revised and then approved by the Division I Board of Directors Wednesday, June 30.
How would college athletes make money within a system that allows them to leverage their NIL?
Under the NIL legislation passed to this point, college athletes would be able to earn money in a variety of different ways (including but not limited to):
- Social media (sponsored posts or advertisements)
- Autograph sales
- Youtube channels and Twitter videos
- Private training lessons
- Merchandise
- Endorsement deals
This seems like a viable compromise between paying college athletes as employees and the current amateurism model. What’s the argument against it?
Those opposed to college athletes being allowed to earn compensation via NIL opportunities often point to what they feel will be unintended consequences of the system:
- Added recruiting advantages and an increased potential for cheating
- Opportunity for third parties or agent-types to scam college athletes
- Complicated tax ramifications and college athlete unfamiliarity with managing finances
- The slippery slope from the amateur model to NIL compensation to schools paying college athletes directly
- Deterioration of what makes college sports different from professional sports