[HurkinMcGurkin]

My opinion is that we could allow the superstars to "endorse" products for money. What is the difference between that and any part time job where they can earn money to pay for rent, etc.

The difference is simple. I get a job at the restaurant or at the market by appying for the job as "me" with my skills. An athlete is only "who he is" because he has received free money from a school, most being publically funded. They are only in the position to be famous and endorese something because they are getting a free ride and because of the College or University they attend. Where I can make $6 to 7$ an hour working based upon employment I gained only by myself, the athlete would be profiting from his free tutition status funded typically by taxpayers(in one way or another).

[CSM]

"An athlete is only "who he is" because he has received free money from a school, most being publically funded."

I understand your point, but I don't think I agree. An athlete is "who he is" because of tremendous talant and in most cases a ton of hard work. In addition, most schools require an acedemic minimum performance that also requires their effort. A school benefits greatly in status and money by recruiting these top tier talants. The athlete benefits greatly by being able to get an education for free or at a greatly reduced price.

Many scholarship athletes still have part time jobs to pay rent, have social money, etc. What is the difference between a part time job and endorsing a product. Both are voluntary contractual agreements between an individual and a business. So what if one job pays differently than another job. Or are we saying that we should regulate through the NCAA a maximum wage that an athlete can earn on their jobs outside of school?