NCAA approves rule to allow athletes to earn off their NIL

I've already seen some Cal athletes starting

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31740112/rule-changes-mean-athletes-schools-more

What kind of things will college athletes be doing now to make money?
Athletes are anticipated to appear in national advertising campaigns; partner with brands to advertise through social media channels; start their own youth sports camps or teach lessons; launch their own businesses; sell memorabilia; make paid public appearances for speaking events or autograph signings; and use their NIL rights in a variety of other creative ways.

Who stands to benefit?
The top stars in college sports will have the opportunity to use their fame to sign deals worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. Others who have built a massive social media following also stand to make considerable amounts of money. But all college athletes will have opportunities for smaller amounts of money or to receive items or free meals in exchange for promoting local businesses. Experts are unsure exactly how much demand there will be for college athletes moving forward, but this previous story estimates the value of the types of opportunities that are now available for college athletes.

But all college athletes will have opportunities for smaller amounts of money or to receive items or free meals in exchange for promoting local businesses.

I could see businesses offering discounts to athletes to become THE PLACE where the team hangs out. I remember seeing a group of players at Angelines after a game. It was kind of fun. It could make a difference as to where fans go. This will be good for players.

LOL. YOu think this is actually above board???!!!

"Hey Bubba. Hi. I run a car dealership in Tuscalusa. I got me here an endorsement deal. Now my customers only care about endorsements from Crimson Tide players so if you sign I can give you $50K for taking a few pictures over here on the parking lot."

I just fail to understand how not everyone understands just how AWFUL this will be for the sport and how we are essentially back to the days before the NCAA.

socaltownie said:

---

LOL. YOu think this is actually above board???!!!

"Hey Bubba. Hi. I run a car dealership in Tuscalusa. I got me here an endorsement deal. Now my customers only care about endorsements from Crimson Tide players so if you sign I can give you $50K for taking a few pictures over here on the parking lot."

I just fail to understand how not everyone understands just how AWFUL this will be for the sport and how we are essentially back to the days before the NCAA.

---

I think it is the only fair thing for student athletes

I've said before, the big question is how the ncaa will handle competitive balance?

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

LOL. YOu think this is actually above board???!!!

"Hey Bubba. Hi. I run a car dealership in Tuscalusa. I got me here an endorsement deal. Now my customers only care about endorsements from Crimson Tide players so if you sign I can give you $50K for taking a few pictures over here on the parking lot."

I just fail to understand how not everyone understands just how AWFUL this will be for the sport and how we are essentially back to the days before the NCAA.

---

I think it is the only fair thing for student athletes

I've said before, the big question is how the ncaa will handle competitive balance?

---

I agree. Anything is better than coaches making millions of dollars per year and players making room and board. The absurdity of that system doomed it to eventual failure.

I think it will lead to an arms race that Cal will lose due to lack of fan support.

---

I actually think all but about 30 schools (and that may be too high) will lose do to an arms race _AND_ limited interest in the networks of paying for rights for the "relegation league". I am not sure what that world actually LOOKS like but it is vastly different than todays and ARGUABLY will be better for institutions (not sure womens athletics though) - as everyone but the 30 starts to resemble the ivy league/D2 model.

An "alms" race?

HoopDreams said:

---

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31740112/rule-changes-mean-athletes-schools-more

What kind of things will college athletes be doing now to make money?
Athletes are anticipated to appear in national advertising campaigns; partner with brands to advertise through social media channels; start their own youth sports camps or teach lessons; launch their own businesses; sell memorabilia; make paid public appearances for speaking events or autograph signings; and use their NIL rights in a variety of other creative ways.

Who stands to benefit?
The top stars in college sports will have the opportunity to use their fame to sign deals worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. Others who have built a massive social media following also stand to make considerable amounts of money. But all college athletes will have opportunities for smaller amounts of money or to receive items or free meals in exchange for promoting local businesses. Experts are unsure exactly how much demand there will be for college athletes moving forward, but this previous story estimates the value of the types of opportunities that are now available for college athletes.

---

I am having trouble grasping or accepting this. This seems to discriminate against players who are not stars, and it discriminates against athletes who play on team sports which are not major sports, and they are discriminated against enough already with the smaller budgets they are forced to accept from their athletic departments.

Take a look at the current Cal basketball team. They have no stars. How many of their rotation players could get any kind of an endorsement deal? The players on the bench behind them have zero chance of getting any money out of this, do they? Modern basketball has its focus the individual, not the team, as it once was. Basketball on the offensive side has far less teamwork now. Coaches were smart to combat the rule changes favoring the offense, by introducing the concept of "help" defense, which in turn induced more teamwork on defense than in the past. But there are fewer recognized individual stars on defense compared to offense.

I wonder what this NIL will do to players in team sports. Will players who make little or no money out of this not become envious or even jealous of the stars who do make most or all of the money? If you were on a team with a star who makes a lot of money, and you had the ball, why would you pass it to a star player, so he could enhance his reputation by scoring another basket, rather than try and score a basket yourself?

What about football? Traditionally, pro linemen don't make as much money at the skill positions, QBs, RBs and receivers. In the case of linemen in college, very few will get endorsement money, IMO. And there is the bench. Cal has a huge roster, over 100 players. Cal looks like they might be a competitive team this season, but how many of these athletes could expect an endorsement of any kind? Only a handful of stars, I'd wager. If you are a player, why would you risk injury by blocking for a QB or a running back, when he makes a lot of endorsement money, and you don't even get a mention in the press, let alone any money your pocket?

Where will this end? Will high schools, AAU ball and be next in line to lobby for the right to make money off endorsements? Amateur team sports was once a noble idea. Kids learning to play a game for fun and with teamwork with others of all abilities, sizes, personalities, races, classes, etc to try and achieve success as a team. This NIL will be one more nail in the coffin of amateur athletics. There are only two things I have come across that destroy every institution in a free society that they touch, money and Communism. Think about it.

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31740112/rule-changes-mean-athletes-schools-more

What kind of things will college athletes be doing now to make money?
Athletes are anticipated to appear in national advertising campaigns; partner with brands to advertise through social media channels; start their own youth sports camps or teach lessons; launch their own businesses; sell memorabilia; make paid public appearances for speaking events or autograph signings; and use their NIL rights in a variety of other creative ways.

Who stands to benefit?
The top stars in college sports will have the opportunity to use their fame to sign deals worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. Others who have built a massive social media following also stand to make considerable amounts of money. But all college athletes will have opportunities for smaller amounts of money or to receive items or free meals in exchange for promoting local businesses. Experts are unsure exactly how much demand there will be for college athletes moving forward, but this previous story estimates the value of the types of opportunities that are now available for college athletes.

---

I am having trouble grasping or accepting this. This seems to discriminate against players who are not stars, and it discriminates against athletes who play on team sports which are not major sports, and they are discriminated against enough already with the smaller budgets they are forced to accept from their athletic departments.

Take a look at the current Cal basketball team. They have no stars. How many of their rotation players could get any kind of an endorsement deal? The players on the bench behind them have zero chance of getting any money out of this, do they? Modern basketball has its focus the individual, not the team, as it once was. Basketball on the offensive side has far less teamwork now. Coaches were smart to combat the rule changes favoring the offense, by introducing the concept of "help" defense, which in turn induced more teamwork on defense than in the past. But there are fewer recognized individual stars on defense compared to offense.

I wonder what this NIL will do to players in team sports. Will players who make little or no money out of this not become envious or even jealous of the stars who do make most or all of the money? If you were on a team with a star who makes a lot of money, and you had the ball, why would you pass it to a star player, so he could enhance his reputation by scoring another basket, rather than try and score a basket yourself?

What about football? Traditionally, pro linemen don't make as much money at the skill positions, QBs, RBs and receivers. In the case of linemen in college, very few will get endorsement money, IMO. And there is the bench. Cal has a huge roster, over 100 players. Cal looks like they might be a competitive team this season, but how many of these athletes could expect an endorsement of any kind? Only a handful of stars, I'd wager. If you are a player, why would you risk injury by blocking for a QB or a running back, when he makes a lot of endorsement money, and you don't even get a mention in the press, let alone any money your pocket?

Where will this end? Will high schools, AAU ball and be next in line to lobby for the right to make money off endorsements? Amateur team sports was once a noble idea. Kids learning to play a game for fun and with teamwork with others of all abilities, sizes, personalities, races, classes, etc to try and achieve success as a team. This NIL will be one more nail in the coffin of amateur athletics. There are only two things I have come across that destroy every institution in a free society that they touch, money and Communism. Think about it.

---

that was before college sports became a big business, and before social media

I don't know how this will all shake out, and I'm concerned it will hurt competitive balance even further than the current situation (with free agency transfers also hurting competitive balance)

I don't think the biggest problem will be the locker room, and you don't have to be the star player to benefit. For example, you can be the hometown hero and run basketball camps, and have smaller sponsors. You can also have other talents and become an 'influencer' using sports as just one of your platforms to raise your profile.

but this rule change is over due

it's up to the ncaa to figure out how to deal with it

HoopDreams said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31740112/rule-changes-mean-athletes-schools-more

What kind of things will college athletes be doing now to make money?
Athletes are anticipated to appear in national advertising campaigns; partner with brands to advertise through social media channels; start their own youth sports camps or teach lessons; launch their own businesses; sell memorabilia; make paid public appearances for speaking events or autograph signings; and use their NIL rights in a variety of other creative ways.

Who stands to benefit?
The top stars in college sports will have the opportunity to use their fame to sign deals worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. Others who have built a massive social media following also stand to make considerable amounts of money. But all college athletes will have opportunities for smaller amounts of money or to receive items or free meals in exchange for promoting local businesses. Experts are unsure exactly how much demand there will be for college athletes moving forward, but this previous story estimates the value of the types of opportunities that are now available for college athletes.

---

I am having trouble grasping or accepting this. This seems to discriminate against players who are not stars, and it discriminates against athletes who play on team sports which are not major sports, and they are discriminated against enough already with the smaller budgets they are forced to accept from their athletic departments.

Take a look at the current Cal basketball team. They have no stars. How many of their rotation players could get any kind of an endorsement deal? The players on the bench behind them have zero chance of getting any money out of this, do they? Modern basketball has its focus the individual, not the team, as it once was. Basketball on the offensive side has far less teamwork now. Coaches were smart to combat the rule changes favoring the offense, by introducing the concept of "help" defense, which in turn induced more teamwork on defense than in the past. But there are fewer recognized individual stars on defense compared to offense.

I wonder what this NIL will do to players in team sports. Will players who make little or no money out of this not become envious or even jealous of the stars who do make most or all of the money? If you were on a team with a star who makes a lot of money, and you had the ball, why would you pass it to a star player, so he could enhance his reputation by scoring another basket, rather than try and score a basket yourself?

What about football? Traditionally, pro linemen don't make as much money at the skill positions, QBs, RBs and receivers. In the case of linemen in college, very few will get endorsement money, IMO. And there is the bench. Cal has a huge roster, over 100 players. Cal looks like they might be a competitive team this season, but how many of these athletes could expect an endorsement of any kind? Only a handful of stars, I'd wager. If you are a player, why would you risk injury by blocking for a QB or a running back, when he makes a lot of endorsement money, and you don't even get a mention in the press, let alone any money your pocket?

Where will this end? Will high schools, AAU ball and be next in line to lobby for the right to make money off endorsements? Amateur team sports was once a noble idea. Kids learning to play a game for fun and with teamwork with others of all abilities, sizes, personalities, races, classes, etc to try and achieve success as a team. This NIL will be one more nail in the coffin of amateur athletics. There are only two things I have come across that destroy every institution in a free society that they touch, money and Communism. Think about it.

---

that was before college sports became a big business, and before social media

I don't know how this will all shake out, and I'm concerned it will hurt competitive balance even further than the current situation (with free agency transfers also hurting competitive balance)

I don't think the biggest problem will be the locker room, and you don't have to be the star player to benefit. For example, you can be the hometown hero and run basketball camps, and have smaller sponsors. You can also have other talents and become an 'influencer' using sports as just one of your platforms to raise your profile.

but this rule change is over due

it's up to the ncaa to figure out how to deal with it

---

We are moving from a highly regulated market to a less regulated market with greater freedom for the players/workers.

The same thing happened in pro sports decades ago. What we saw is that teams that were successful under the old rules generally continued to thrive under the new rules. Big markets allow for big revenues.

Under the old system in baseball for example, big market baseball teams spent a lot more money than their peers on scouting and farm systems, giving them a competitive advantage. Now they spend the money on free agents, giving the money directly to the players. And while the highest paid players are far better off than the highest paid players previously, even the lowest paid players are better off than the lowest paid players previously. But the spread has increased, obviously. Some teams stayed ahead of the curve in the new system by exploiting market imperfections (Moneyball).

In college basketball I expect the competitive dynamic between teams will not change much. The prigrams (schools and boosters) that could afford to pay big bucks for a coach who then got the top players will instead pay less for the coach and more for the top players. The key is roster limits. The power programs will still fill up on the same power players. There may be a shift with some new power programs developing in big markets and some small market programs losing their attractiveness, but overall, the schools that currently offer recruits more, in terms of top coaching and fan support, will continue to offer more, just NIL money too.

Cal will not be any worse off and could be better off under the new rules. The SF Bay Area is one of the largest markets in the country and Cal has a large student population. Many alums are decision markers at their companies. However, a bench player at Cal or Kentucky is unlikely to earn much NIL money, but the Cal player is always going to get a Cal education.

A player like Bradley might stay at Cal where he is the established star and make NIL money rather than transfer to SDState where he will be a relative unknown, albeit on a better team with more fan support and exposure in a good market.

I do think that the $millions coaches make will eventually be reduced as booster resources are reallocated to the players and I think that will be a good thing.

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31740112/rule-changes-mean-athletes-schools-more

What kind of things will college athletes be doing now to make money?
Athletes are anticipated to appear in national advertising campaigns; partner with brands to advertise through social media channels; start their own youth sports camps or teach lessons; launch their own businesses; sell memorabilia; make paid public appearances for speaking events or autograph signings; and use their NIL rights in a variety of other creative ways.

Who stands to benefit?
The top stars in college sports will have the opportunity to use their fame to sign deals worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. Others who have built a massive social media following also stand to make considerable amounts of money. But all college athletes will have opportunities for smaller amounts of money or to receive items or free meals in exchange for promoting local businesses. Experts are unsure exactly how much demand there will be for college athletes moving forward, but this previous story estimates the value of the types of opportunities that are now available for college athletes.

---

I am having trouble grasping or accepting this. This seems to discriminate against players who are not stars, and it discriminates against athletes who play on team sports which are not major sports, and they are discriminated against enough already with the smaller budgets they are forced to accept from their athletic departments.

Take a look at the current Cal basketball team. They have no stars. How many of their rotation players could get any kind of an endorsement deal? The players on the bench behind them have zero chance of getting any money out of this, do they? Modern basketball has its focus the individual, not the team, as it once was. Basketball on the offensive side has far less teamwork now. Coaches were smart to combat the rule changes favoring the offense, by introducing the concept of "help" defense, which in turn induced more teamwork on defense than in the past. But there are fewer recognized individual stars on defense compared to offense.

I wonder what this NIL will do to players in team sports. Will players who make little or no money out of this not become envious or even jealous of the stars who do make most or all of the money? If you were on a team with a star who makes a lot of money, and you had the ball, why would you pass it to a star player, so he could enhance his reputation by scoring another basket, rather than try and score a basket yourself?

What about football? Traditionally, pro linemen don't make as much money at the skill positions, QBs, RBs and receivers. In the case of linemen in college, very few will get endorsement money, IMO. And there is the bench. Cal has a huge roster, over 100 players. Cal looks like they might be a competitive team this season, but how many of these athletes could expect an endorsement of any kind? Only a handful of stars, I'd wager. If you are a player, why would you risk injury by blocking for a QB or a running back, when he makes a lot of endorsement money, and you don't even get a mention in the press, let alone any money your pocket?

Where will this end? Will high schools, AAU ball and be next in line to lobby for the right to make money off endorsements? Amateur team sports was once a noble idea. Kids learning to play a game for fun and with teamwork with others of all abilities, sizes, personalities, races, classes, etc to try and achieve success as a team. This NIL will be one more nail in the coffin of amateur athletics. There are only two things I have come across that destroy every institution in a free society that they touch, money and Communism. Think about it.

---

If your goal was irony you could not do much better. The history of athletic amateurism is the history of preventing the lower classes from competing because they could not afford to. The idea of came from the English upper class in the second half of the 19th century. It is interesting that you bring up communism as the amateur system exactly models Marx's critique of capitalism. Players get paid subsistence (tuition, room and board) while the owner class (coaches and administrators) make millions. I want that coffin nailed shut.

Quote:

---

I am having trouble grasping or accepting this. This seems to discriminate against players who are not stars, and it discriminates against athletes who play on team sports which are not major sports, and they are discriminated against enough already with the smaller budgets they are forced to accept from their athletic departments.

---

Of course, this advantages the stars (and/or attractive). That is by design. Always has been the intent. I do agree that schools like Cal will not be able to compete with the $$. Just not the sports interest in the Bay Area as there is in say Big 10 country or the southeast.

FSU twins have inked a deal.

https://thespun.com/mountain-west/fresno-state/cavinder-twins-haley-hanna-fresno-state-basketball-nil-endorsement-boost-mobile-times-square

Grrr....again - the idea that the NIL is actually a function of the marketing value of endorsements is just...well...laughable.

This is _ALL_ (well 99%) is going to be about how alumni that revel in "winning" are now able to make above the table coffee cup payments

socaltownie said:

---

Grrr....again - the idea that the NIL is actually a function of the marketing value of endorsements is just...well...laughable.

This is _ALL_ (well 99%) is going to be about how alumni that revel in "winning" are now able to make above the table coffee cup payments

---

Correct. But it hurts no one and helps the athletes.

And this is an example of schools like Cal will never be able to compete. And the athletes will make an economic decision to gravitate towards teams who have alums that can spend cash.


"Local MMA team makes landmark $540,000 total NIL commitment to Miami football players"

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/college/acc/university-of-miami/article252592583.html#storylink=cpy

sluggo said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Grrr....again - the idea that the NIL is actually a function of the marketing value of endorsements is just...well...laughable.

This is _ALL_ (well 99%) is going to be about how alumni that revel in "winning" are now able to make above the table coffee cup payments

---

Correct. But it hurts no one and helps the athletes.

---

It will help some athletes but here's a potential scenario I wonder about:
1. Top athletes (football and basketball) flock to the Top 25 schools because they can get the most exposure/NIL revenue. These schools/conferences consequently increase TV revenue - in other words, the rich get richer.
2. Remaining schools (Cal, OSU, WSU,. ASU, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, etc etc) hope for the occasional upset of a top team but basically aspire to an 8-5 record and of course many don't even break .500.
3. Fan/alumni interest, already tepid for schools out of the Top 25, drops further. Millennials hardly went to games when they were students, so why follow a losing team after graduation?
4. As football/basketball revenue drops for non-top-25 teams, athletic departments can no longer support as many other sports. They still have to meet Title-9, but this could mean adios to mens varsity teams for baseball, swimming, soccer, track, tennis, golf, and in fact, football.

Is this possible, or is my mind warped by 60 years of following Cal football where, if something bad CAN happen, it generally does?

socaltownie said:

---

LOL. YOu think this is actually above board???!!!

"Hey Bubba. Hi. I run a car dealership in Tuscalusa. I got me here an endorsement deal. Now my customers only care about endorsements from Crimson Tide players so if you sign I can give you $50K for taking a few pictures over here on the parking lot."

I just fail to understand how not everyone understands just how AWFUL this will be for the sport and how we are essentially back to the days before the NCAA.

---

I thought of this exact scenario! A car dealer in Tuscaloosa. And I'll add an additional wrinkle:

What if that car dealer in Tuscaloosa, who's paying that Alabama 5* running back a fat NIL fee, asks him for the straight scoop on the 'Bama QB's sprained knee just before the LSU game and uses the info to place a bet?

HearstMining said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

LOL. YOu think this is actually above board???!!!

"Hey Bubba. Hi. I run a car dealership in Tuscalusa. I got me here an endorsement deal. Now my customers only care about endorsements from Crimson Tide players so if you sign I can give you $50K for taking a few pictures over here on the parking lot."

I just fail to understand how not everyone understands just how AWFUL this will be for the sport and how we are essentially back to the days before the NCAA.

---

I thought of this exact scenario! A car dealer in Tuscaloosa. And I'll add an additional wrinkle:

What if that car dealer in Tuscaloosa, who's paying that Alabama 5* running back a fat NIL fee, asks him for the straight scoop on the 'Bama QB's sprained knee just before the LSU game and uses the info to place a bet?

---

Business.

Go Laundry!

sluggo said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Grrr....again - the idea that the NIL is actually a function of the marketing value of endorsements is just...well...laughable.

This is _ALL_ (well 99%) is going to be about how alumni that revel in "winning" are now able to make above the table coffee cup payments

---

Correct. But it hurts no one and helps the athletes.

---

It is going to crush women's sports as schools drop football, see athletics as a cost center and no longer need to fund women sports to offset the cost of men's football

Central Florida's women's basketball team just got fully sponsored, which mean each player will get money on top of the scholarship. How much is unclear, but expect similar investments in non-revenue sports for scattered schools across the country.

sluggo said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31740112/rule-changes-mean-athletes-schools-more

What kind of things will college athletes be doing now to make money?
Athletes are anticipated to appear in national advertising campaigns; partner with brands to advertise through social media channels; start their own youth sports camps or teach lessons; launch their own businesses; sell memorabilia; make paid public appearances for speaking events or autograph signings; and use their NIL rights in a variety of other creative ways.

Who stands to benefit?
The top stars in college sports will have the opportunity to use their fame to sign deals worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. Others who have built a massive social media following also stand to make considerable amounts of money. But all college athletes will have opportunities for smaller amounts of money or to receive items or free meals in exchange for promoting local businesses. Experts are unsure exactly how much demand there will be for college athletes moving forward, but this previous story estimates the value of the types of opportunities that are now available for college athletes.

---

I am having trouble grasping or accepting this. This seems to discriminate against players who are not stars, and it discriminates against athletes who play on team sports which are not major sports, and they are discriminated against enough already with the smaller budgets they are forced to accept from their athletic departments.

Take a look at the current Cal basketball team. They have no stars. How many of their rotation players could get any kind of an endorsement deal? The players on the bench behind them have zero chance of getting any money out of this, do they? Modern basketball has its focus the individual, not the team, as it once was. Basketball on the offensive side has far less teamwork now. Coaches were smart to combat the rule changes favoring the offense, by introducing the concept of "help" defense, which in turn induced more teamwork on defense than in the past. But there are fewer recognized individual stars on defense compared to offense.

I wonder what this NIL will do to players in team sports. Will players who make little or no money out of this not become envious or even jealous of the stars who do make most or all of the money? If you were on a team with a star who makes a lot of money, and you had the ball, why would you pass it to a star player, so he could enhance his reputation by scoring another basket, rather than try and score a basket yourself?

What about football? Traditionally, pro linemen don't make as much money at the skill positions, QBs, RBs and receivers. In the case of linemen in college, very few will get endorsement money, IMO. And there is the bench. Cal has a huge roster, over 100 players. Cal looks like they might be a competitive team this season, but how many of these athletes could expect an endorsement of any kind? Only a handful of stars, I'd wager. If you are a player, why would you risk injury by blocking for a QB or a running back, when he makes a lot of endorsement money, and you don't even get a mention in the press, let alone any money your pocket?

Where will this end? Will high schools, AAU ball and be next in line to lobby for the right to make money off endorsements? Amateur team sports was once a noble idea. Kids learning to play a game for fun and with teamwork with others of all abilities, sizes, personalities, races, classes, etc to try and achieve success as a team. This NIL will be one more nail in the coffin of amateur athletics. There are only two things I have come across that destroy every institution in a free society that they touch, money and Communism. Think about it.

---

If your goal was irony you could not do much better. The history of athletic amateurism is the history of preventing the lower classes from competing because they could not afford to. The idea of came from the English upper class in the second half of the 19th century. It is interesting that you bring up communism as the amateur system exactly models Marx's critique of capitalism. Players get paid subsistence (tuition, room and board) while the owner class (coaches and administrators) make millions. I want that coffin nailed shut.

---

With all due respect, I think the history of amateurism goes back a lot farther than the English upper class in 19th century. That was certainly part of it, but I doubt that the British aristocracy wanted to exclude the working class because they could not afford to. I would guess they did it because they wanted to exclude them because there might have been good athletes among the working class, and they wanted to keep them out of the competition. Workers mostly worked in physically demanding jobs, and they likely had better developed muscles than the wealthy class, which either worked with their minds, or did no work at all.

Athletic competition began eons ago with the ancient Greeks, the Olympics, and probably before that. When two or more competitors decided to have a competition, they did it for the sport of it, the competition to see who was best. In the early Olympics, prizes had no monetary value. There was a love of the sport for its own sake. There was also a long period of time where a philosophy of "Muscular Christianity" was in vogue, where it was held that sports were to develop good character, a muscular body, athletic training,and good Christian morals. This goes back to the writings of Paul the Apostle, and continued for almost 2000 years. Teddy Roosevelt was an ardent adherent. I think this philosophy had much to do with the development of amateurism, including when it first became the norm in college athletics.

If your argument borrows from one of Marx, and you don't like the salaries paid to college coaches and administrators, I'd agree with that. Then why not argue to bring those salaries down in line with other faculty members? Coaches are essentially physical education instructors, teaching advanced classes in team sports, along with teaching physical fitness. They must also be super-salesmen to attract and sell 18 year olds to enroll in our school. Even with that, they are not in my mind worthy of compensation more than say, a microbiology professor whose research leads to a vaccine, a physics prof whose research leads to a new atomic particle, or to professors who lecture in history, economics, medicine, engineering, languages, civics, and many other disciplines.

So let's fix the salaries of coaches first, instead of paying players. Two wrongs don't make a right. Monetarily speaking, players are entertainers, that's all. I think it is a sad commentary on a society which pays its entertainers millions, and pays its producers, the people who grow our food, and deliver it to our tables, a pittance in comparison. Why are professional athletes, singers, actors, etc. who contribute nothing to our civilization other than entertainment paid more than those who do contribute inventions like the computer, the phone, the refrigerator, the automobile, the airplane, etc.?

Way back in the 1950s, when Cal and other PCC schools committed many recruiting violations, it was UC System President, Robert Gordon Sproul, who said something like this, "What we want is students playing at athletics, not athletes playing at being students."

In ancient Greece and Rome, professional athletes were common. Winning Olympic gold generally resulted in a lifetime salary from the home city, and/or the city gymnasium to run.

There were annual athletic festivals all throughout the ancient world, and none of them were amateur in any sense.

In medieval times, young knights would fight in tournaments, and though there were no direct monetary prizes, defeating an opponent allowed the winner to claim "ransom" from the loser, either in cash, weapons or horses.

And just like today, professional athletes -- and aside from the fact they're not paid, college football players certainly qualify -- have always been much better paid than teachers or other essential workers, just as entertainers are better paid. The market makes these decisions, and has made the same decisions consistently since we've had economic data to consult.

All that said, I agree that coaches should be paid no more than professors, but clearly the intelligent people who run universities have found it makes economic sense to pay coaches more, and have done so for decades. (When it was pointed out to Babe Ruth that he made more money than the president of the USA, he said "I had a better year.")

The fantasy of amateurism doesn't even extend to high school or youth sports, as elite athletes always get extra benefits, it not outright cash. If nothing else, eliminating the hypocrisy is a positive step.

SFCityBear said:

---

With all due respect, I think the history of amateurism goes back a lot farther than the English upper class in 19th century. That was certainly part of it, but I doubt that the British aristocracy wanted to exclude the working class because they could not afford to. I would guess they did it because they wanted to exclude them because there might have been good athletes among the working class, and they wanted to keep them out of the competition. Workers mostly worked in physically demanding jobs, and they likely had better developed muscles than the wealthy class, which either worked with their minds, or did no work at all.

Athletic competition began eons ago with the ancient Greeks, the Olympics, and probably before that. When two or more competitors decided to have a competition, they did it for the sport of it, the competition to see who was best. In the early Olympics, prizes had no monetary value. There was a love of the sport for its own sake. There was also a long period of time where a philosophy of "Muscular Christianity" was in vogue, where it was held that sports were to develop good character, a muscular body, athletic training,and good Christian morals. This goes back to the writings of Paul the Apostle, and continued for almost 2000 years. Teddy Roosevelt was an ardent adherent. I think this philosophy had much to do with the development of amateurism, including when it first became the norm in college athletics.

---

I'm not sure the Greek Olympians were, strictly speaking, amateurs. A quick search indicated that valuable prizes were given to winners of ancient Olympic competitions. Here is one link that certainly looks like a reputable source: https://www.penn.museum/sites/olympics/olympicathletes.shtml

I would never cite a movie as a definitive source, but some of you may recall Chariots of Fire, which concerned several athletes on the British 1924 Olympic team. One of them (Harold Abrams) was chastized by his faculty at Cambridge FOR USING A COACH (the hidden agenda of the faculty was that as a Jew, and he really wasn't part of the upper class). But apparently at that time, the definition of "amateur" to the British upper class excluded employing coaches. The USA team of course did use coaches but certainly considered its athletes to be amateurs. So the point is that even then, "amateur" was open to interpretation.

While I'm at it, with the Olympics right around the corner, I'll put in a pitch for Chariots of Fire - what a great film! When the Eric Liddell character runs the 400 meters, I swear my body levitates an inch out of my chair.

And finally, on a Cal note, Harold "Brick" Muller won the Olympic silver medal in the high jump in 1920!