03-26-2024, 03:55 PM
I certainly could be mistaken and admit that I don't understand Alston. I believe Alston affirmed the Ninth Circuit and Northern District of California's conclusions that NCAA rules limiting education-related benefits that schools may make available to student athletes violates anti-trust law. [emphasis added] I think Alston tossed the ideal of amateurism as somehow exempting college athletics from antitrust law. Alston did not address rules limiting scholarships and other compensation related to athletic performance. My logic above is not sound.
Now as to what is immoral, I don't think athletes deciding where to go based on market conditions is immoral. Anecdotal information is always dangerous, but here goes:
1. Cameron Brink and her New Balance ads. That is pure NIL. People recognize her, so she has value to a shoe company. It's not a speaking part so I don't know how her endorsement money compares to someone like Caitlin Clark or Angel Reese and their State Farm work, where they speak or sing off key and Jake shows up. (You can tell the difference in Reggie Miller's TV experience in how he delivers 'did I hear an Old Pacer' line.) Or UNC's Armando Bacot, who gets paid to sell Turbo Tax. He's not bad. Caleb Williams was really good in those Dr. Pepper ads. Those are clearly not bribes and I believe what NIL intended. Should schools be helping grease the skids for this work ? I'm not sure if they are or if that would be bad. They probably shouldn't be flashing contracts for State Farm ads in front of recruits though.
2. I was paid to go to Stanford. Not for my intramural prowess of course, but to grade homework, teach hydraulic class sections, and run the lab for undergraduates. In return I received a fellowship and monthly stipend (salary, right?), the latter of which was after tax but the former was not taxed. Is that much different had they brought me in to dunk on people instead? I go to class, I do my work, I get paid. I chose Stanford not in small part because the $17,000 cost to attend for a nine-month masters was essentially paid in full, compared to Berkeley where that $12,000 cost was uncertain, to be charitable. "Hmmm, maybe we can find you some money." Or to Cambridge (MIT) where they had plenty of money, but for two years of research in a field that wasn't my top choice. Market conditions drove my decision.
3. My son will go to business school next year at UVA (Darden), Vandy (Owen), or Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler). Duke (Fuqua) rejected him. This is all on the GI bill, so he won't be out of pocket. UNC offered him a small cash scholarship (is that a bribe?), and he should hear whether he gets substantially larger cash scholarships from either Darden or Owen. He's not playing them against each other, he's done some research about who recruits where, starting salaries, etc. and will, with his wife make an adult decision. Market conditions.
4. Herschel Walker and his Trans Am. Now that is corruption. I think we all agree on that. (Trying to draw GaCard out if he still lurks.)
Now as to what is immoral, I don't think athletes deciding where to go based on market conditions is immoral. Anecdotal information is always dangerous, but here goes:
1. Cameron Brink and her New Balance ads. That is pure NIL. People recognize her, so she has value to a shoe company. It's not a speaking part so I don't know how her endorsement money compares to someone like Caitlin Clark or Angel Reese and their State Farm work, where they speak or sing off key and Jake shows up. (You can tell the difference in Reggie Miller's TV experience in how he delivers 'did I hear an Old Pacer' line.) Or UNC's Armando Bacot, who gets paid to sell Turbo Tax. He's not bad. Caleb Williams was really good in those Dr. Pepper ads. Those are clearly not bribes and I believe what NIL intended. Should schools be helping grease the skids for this work ? I'm not sure if they are or if that would be bad. They probably shouldn't be flashing contracts for State Farm ads in front of recruits though.
2. I was paid to go to Stanford. Not for my intramural prowess of course, but to grade homework, teach hydraulic class sections, and run the lab for undergraduates. In return I received a fellowship and monthly stipend (salary, right?), the latter of which was after tax but the former was not taxed. Is that much different had they brought me in to dunk on people instead? I go to class, I do my work, I get paid. I chose Stanford not in small part because the $17,000 cost to attend for a nine-month masters was essentially paid in full, compared to Berkeley where that $12,000 cost was uncertain, to be charitable. "Hmmm, maybe we can find you some money." Or to Cambridge (MIT) where they had plenty of money, but for two years of research in a field that wasn't my top choice. Market conditions drove my decision.
3. My son will go to business school next year at UVA (Darden), Vandy (Owen), or Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler). Duke (Fuqua) rejected him. This is all on the GI bill, so he won't be out of pocket. UNC offered him a small cash scholarship (is that a bribe?), and he should hear whether he gets substantially larger cash scholarships from either Darden or Owen. He's not playing them against each other, he's done some research about who recruits where, starting salaries, etc. and will, with his wife make an adult decision. Market conditions.
4. Herschel Walker and his Trans Am. Now that is corruption. I think we all agree on that. (Trying to draw GaCard out if he still lurks.)