Articles like these have a modicum of arithmetic, but nearly no discernable
logic.Using the NFL revenue share numbers? Where's the logic
in that? The NFL isn't required by the Federal Government to run an
athletic program with comparable opportunity for female and male athletes.The average NCAA basketball player is worth $400K a year. Really? Then
why can't they make $100 a year playing basketball the year after they
graduate? Why isn't the Northwestern quarterback behind the unionization
movement making money playing quarterback this year? The simple
truth is that the vast majority of graduating basketball and football players
never make another cent playing their sport because they can't generate any
revenue with their athletic skill without the logo/brand of their school and the
NCAA.Their skills are equal to or better than when they were in
college, but those skills, for all but the top 1% have no ability to generate
ANY income playing sports. What does that say about who/what is generating the
income sited in these studies?
Propaganda plain and simple. Just trying to manufacture fuel to get the
"unionize college players" fire burning as hot as possible.
And who provides athletes with team mates to make them look good, has a stadium
in which to play, schedules opponents, facilities in which to train, skilled
coaching, a free education and publicity galore? They should play on a
contingency fee basis, e.g. if you earn a salary in sports you pay your college
Re casual observerThe $178,000 figure isn't all the money.
Gimme a break. It's a drop in the bucket. The Universities
still make over a billion profit in TV revenue after the payout (if they did pay
college athletes instead of the slavery theynare in now).