Replies

"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?

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.

An endorsement is not strictly between the individual and the business. The athlete isn't simply "Joe Smith". No one would care. He is "Joe Smith who plays for the University of North Carolina Tarheels" or whatever. College is for amatuer athletes. Being paid based upon your association with the university and based upon your skills is not amatuer.

Do universities and others make tons of money off the backs of unpaid athletes? Sure they do. Does the free education, room and board compensate the athlete adequately? In most cases, yes. The blame lies partly with the fans for making college athletics such a money maker. The rest of the blame lies with the NCAA, who because of greed, wont disallow member schools and coaches from signing endorsement or television deals of their own.