Started By
Message
re: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Former Athletes in Dispute with NCAA
Posted on 6/21/21 at 1:19 pm to 1BamaRTR
Posted on 6/21/21 at 1:19 pm to 1BamaRTR
My bad, did not mean to reply to you.
I actually agree with what you said though. Covering all education related expenses is fine to me because it's part of the cost of attendance, but signaling that they are willing to classify an athletics department as a business and the athletes as employees is a huge problem and will very likely lead to schools making massive budget cuts. And how does Title IX play into this? If you pay the football team you have to pay the women's soccer team despite all those programs operating at a big loss and doing very little to financially benefit individual universities or the NCAA. It's a football and men's basketball problem, not a non-revenue sport problem.
I actually agree with what you said though. Covering all education related expenses is fine to me because it's part of the cost of attendance, but signaling that they are willing to classify an athletics department as a business and the athletes as employees is a huge problem and will very likely lead to schools making massive budget cuts. And how does Title IX play into this? If you pay the football team you have to pay the women's soccer team despite all those programs operating at a big loss and doing very little to financially benefit individual universities or the NCAA. It's a football and men's basketball problem, not a non-revenue sport problem.
This post was edited on 6/21/21 at 1:25 pm
2
Posted on 6/21/21 at 1:46 pm to Robot Santa
I think you also have to take into account that many of these sports opportunities wouldn't exist without the massive TV contracts. A lot of these schools wouldn't be involved in college athletics at all if not for the revenue that it can generate and many are very reliant on that revenue to prop up their entire athletics program. If you take money from that pie, then those schools will have to start dropping sports and the opportunities for athletes will decrease.
It will be interesting to see how this affects the overall landscape of college athletics moving forward.
It will be interesting to see how this affects the overall landscape of college athletics moving forward.
Posted on 6/21/21 at 1:50 pm to Robot Santa
quote:
If you pay the football team you have to pay the women's soccer team despite all those programs operating at a big loss and doing very little to financially benefit individual universities or the NCAA.
As I read it, the ruling does not mean that schools have to pay athletes. It means that athletes can make money on their name, image, and a company can pay them. But, I'm not sure about a couple of things: 1. If JD Davison gets an offer to do a NIKE commercial, can he do so wearing an Alabama uniform, and if so, 2. what is the split as then both player and school have a NIKE contract. Also, if Kool Aid has officially changed his name to Kool Aid, does he owe Kool aid (or whoever makes it) money if he sells a t-shirt with that name on it? It's going to be interesting to see how all this plays out. I hope the offensive line gets some big money moving big rocks with CraneWorks machines. Hope Robert Dunning, national champion hurdler, gets to do a commercial leaping buildings to deliver Taco Casa hot tacos.
Page 1 of 1
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News