But there is nothing in the law preventing the womens volleyball players from earning what the men earn. This law does not allow schools to pay atheletes, it allows prohibits schools or the NCAA from limiting a student from competing who is paid for their likeness. If a car dealer wants to pay the volleyball team to appear in a commercial this law allows that. Of course I think we all know what will really happen. Big boosters will pay big dollars to 5 star football and basketball players to come to their schools. Then the question is would congress step in and change title 9 to address the discrepency? Who knows.just wait until the women's vollyball team is screaming about not making as much as the men's football team....
goodluck with that can of worms, california.
We've been the doormat of the SEC the past 10years. We need a major change to get us going again and if paying players helps, I'm all for it. UT needs to be proactive and paying players is gonna happen sooner rather than later, UT needs to figure out a way to use it to their advantage.
It's called incentive.So don't pay the general population of athletes, but pay the ones that make it to the bowls? I don't get this logic. There are GREAT players across the nation that gives their "all" to whatever university they are part of but they shouldn't get a cut because their team couldn't make a bowl?
I have mixed feelings about the whole deal but I cant say I am against a player getting a piece of the pie when others are profiting from their names.
But there is nothing in the law preventing the womens volleyball players from earning what the men earn. This law does not allow schools to pay atheletes, it allows prohibits schools or the NCAA from limiting a student from competing who is paid for their likeness. If a car dealer wants to pay the volleyball team to appear in a commercial this law allows that. Of course I think we all know what will really happen. Big boosters will pay big dollars to 5 star football and basketball players to come to their schools. Then the question is would congress step in and change title 9 to address the discrepency? Who knows.
If this passed in all 50 states, this would be the end of college football as we know. The schools with the most revenue or richest boosters would essentially spend their way into a championship.
Similar to what the NFL would be without the salary cap. Jerry Jones would just try and buy a Super bowl if he could.
Although this strategy doesn't always work, see Steinbrenner form the Yankees. MLB has no cap.
The coaches, universities, conferences, sponsors and media are all raking in cash hand over fist. The NFL gets free player development and player promotion. The athletes absolutely deserve a cut, especially when they're forced to play in the NCAA for 3 years before they can actually profit off of their craft. There is also the potential for athletes with an NFL future that end up with career shortening or even career ending injuries.
The only reason the NCAA fights players being able to profit off of their license is because it would kill their tax exempt status. FBS football is a free farm system for the NFL. The idea this is amateur athletics is laughable at this point.
If you read the information on the bill, it does still does NOT allow schools to pay the athletes directly. They will strictly be allowed to make money off of their names and likenesses.. No one said anything about splitting bowl revenue or anything like thatThe problem the Universities have with all of this is they receive a reduction in revenue. If they have to split the bowl revenue and the SEC/TV contract money plus the jersey sales from the bookstore among 85 kids (or so), that's a whole lotta money and they are going to miss that. No way any school is for this!