I can understand the complaints against Albom… But I don’t think it’s hard to see his argument. Besides the NCAA sports, what other professions can you think of where you can’t profit off your own ability? Is a college scholarship nice? Of course it is, but no other profession says here you can have this but you may absolutely not have anything else. If one of us were in a situation where our child was worth 6 or 7 figures to a university but we saw no additional benefit we would be frustrated, especially if you were coming from nothing to begin with. So to Albom’s point, if a student can be on scholarship for music but profit of his or her music or be on scholarship for theater and profit off their acting, why can’t athletes who are under essentially NCAA control?
I don’t ever see a day where the NCAA starts paying athletes like some would like to see. It would cost them a fortune and they’re not about to cut their own hand off. With title IX they can’t pay some more than others. So the simple fix, and Emmert just was quoted saying they’re looking closely at it, is to have a model similar to the Olympics where athletes can make money off their ‘brand’ so to speak. This allows the greedy NCAA to still roll in the cash and allows the players who’s market value is worth something to actually make some money. If they don’t do this they run a real risk of their organization collapsing.
I don’t know how anyone can argue this… The NCAA creates ‘amateur’ athletes and then profits greatly (the NFL was a non profit so don’t even go there) off said amateur athletes. They make close to a billion dollars a year alone on March Madness. Allowing players who can make money to make money doesn’t seem any more unfair than allowing any other college kid (scholarship or not) to profit off their talents. Telling a kid they can’t sounds more akin to socialism than capitalism.