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.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Robot Santa

Member since Oct 2009

44446 posts

Posted on 6/21/21 at 1:59 pm to AbSnopes

quote:
As I read it, the ruling does not mean that schools have to pay athletes.

It doesn't. It has to do with the NCAA not allowing schools to cover education related expenses beyond just tuition, room & board, meal plan, etc. However, the SCOTUS typically isn't in the business of waxing poetic about a topic in an opinion just for the sake of doing it. Kavanaugh is essentially asking for a lawsuit to have athletes declared employees and universities declared employers.

0 ...

Report Post

Alabama Sports Board - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board