Coming soon: NCAA v. California

Because the schools need the money? Because as a society we want those kids to get an education so they can prosper outside the sport?

How many kids in an English soccer academy at age 19 never reach a pro level that will pay their bills? In D1 American football its what, 90% or more?

I think a pro academy system would see far far fewer players participating. There are 130 FBS football teams, that would require every NFL team to sponsor 4 of ‘em.

 

Those kids still receive an education in Europe. It's just not tied to their athletic endeavors. Canada has a similar set-up with hockey: Kids in the OHL and QMJHL still have classes to take. Hell, it's starting to happen with soccer in the US.

In Europe, you don't play high school or college sports. Some think US should follow suit.

 

Oklahoma and Georgia went to the Supreme Court to successfully argue that the NCAA college television contract was a violation of antitrust law in the 80's. This ruling sure as hell dramatically changed college athletics. The 400 page+ thread we had college conferences realigning was proof of this.

I do not see why if the money received from television contracts is subject to federal law why the athletes we watch on these televised events should also not be protected.

 

Because amateurism is a virtue and professionalism is dirty, except for the coaches, administrators, officials, and everyone else.

It reminds me, a bit, of a line that Red Grange told his coach when he left school to join the Bears. This was back when the NFL and professional players were, for whatever dumb reason, seen as trashy for playing football for money. Grange told his coach, “you get paid for coaching football, so why can’t I get paid for playing football?”

 

Probably for the always shitty reason of, "Because that's how we've always done it." I've always thought that the end game to this should be some sort of academy system or proper, deeper minor leagues, but there's just a deep resistance to both ideas. (Well, you know, unless it's tennis or golf. For some strange white reason, it's always been perfectly fine to go pro in those sports at any point.)

 

My post is unrelated to this response.

My hunch is, the more “free” the market becomes for kids sports, the less national benefit we’ll get out of it. If you suddenly allow kids to make endorsement money in college, they can make it whenever. The wealthiest among us will leverage it. The shoe companies will run it. You’ll stratify it in a way that’s not good and athletes will lose sentimental protections afforded amateurs.

The idea that all of this is some kind of universal good is laughable and rooted in the sports media’s liberal bias. It’ll be good and bad. Just like anything.

 

"sentimental protections"?

 

Yeah, it's a liberal bias to want people who create immense value to be paid for their contributions at a market rate.

 

This might actually "clean up" a sport like basketball. Agency signs a 12 year old, and Nike buys the kid and places them on their developmental roster where they have more control than in the AAU leagues and then they place him at one of their sponsor schools - but the kid is getting paid real money all along the way. If his talent (or he or she) doesn't continue to grow - maybe the player has stashed enough money to pay to go to college on their own.
The problem for the kids is if they start switching agents as frequently as they do their commitments to schools.

 

How does Europe deal with underage kids signing contracts? In a lot of states contracts with minors are unenforceable against the minor.

 

Considering it's California - why not just deal with it like they do child actors?

 

Libertarianism isn't liberal?

Most sports journalists I knew or keep in touch with now are functionally socially and economic libertarians. Legalize everything, pay everyone anything, maximize, maximize earning potential.

That mindset - which many Americans share - actually makes it hard to do things like socialized medicine, which absolutely depresses the earnings potentials of, say, the best doctors. I'm for socialized medicine because, at the end of the day I don't much give a shit if a doctor is a millionaire compared to universal coverage, nor do I care if some union members loses a tiny plank of their plan because of socialized medicine. But I don't pretend it doesn't exist, these risks or trade-offs.