"The only thing I ever wanted, was to live in a house with running water..."
Sterling Sharpe
How evil do you have to be, to expect Shannon Sharpe and Sterling Sharpe to play football for you for free, while you earn millions, and to deny them even the right to go and get a job for themselves?
@mekkaokereke Arch's noble stand is the equivalent to the early days of soccer in england when the landed gentry and their soccer clubs always won the FA cup, because only they had the money to hire professional coaches and trainers and enough leisure time to practice without having to spend 12 hours at a factory job to make money to live.
Little known fact... Before the scam of college sports "amateurism," the Ivy League schools had the best football teams, by far.🤯
Because they were the richest schools, and could afford to pay their players the most!🤡
Which means in this post-NIL, pre-collective bargaining era, we are one rich Harvard grad away from Harvard winning the NCAA basketball tournament easily!
The best legal way to balance spending across teams, and "control" salaries, is collective bargaining.👍🏿
No team can pay more than $X per year in total salary!
Players are not allowed to move freely between teams!
They can do this without violating anti-trust law because NBA players have a union (the National Basketball Players' Association, NBPA). The NBPA negotiates with the NBA on behalf of its members, and agrees to these rules. The union also does things like make sure that 50% of league revenue goes to players.👍🏿
@mekkaokereke Brave new world - but there's going to be some weirdness. Physically attractive athletes and ones who are really good and social media engagement are going to be making more money than athletes who actually, you know, help win things. And you're right, rich alumns are 100% going to be playing GM trying to buy championships.
And for sure is a need for collective bargaining to protect workers, even when those workers are college athletes.
Maybe? But it depends on how well they're marketed.
Eg, Caitlin Clark is less *conventionally attractive than Cameron Brink, Hailey Van Lith. And Caitlin Clark doesn't lean into her looks, or wear as revealing outfits, as Hailey or Cameron. But she makes much more in NIL money.🙂🙃
The world has evolved past "Sharipova is more marketable than Serena." Women can market themselves how they want.
(*These are all unrealistically fit, attractive women. "Conventional" is key word)
@mekkaokereke Agree 100% on women controlling their likenessmarket yourself however you want. But Caitlin Clark's estimated to be at $3.1M last year trails an LSU gymnast who isn't top 5 on her own team, Olivia Dunne https://www.on3.com/db/livvy-dunne-162353
The vast majority of pro athletes are making almost all their money off their performance, and not on their endorsement side deals. It's a brave new world.
Add comment