I’ve been waiting for this logic shoe to drop in the O’Bannon case:
The O’Bannon plaintiffs say recent bylaws allowing athletes to receive $300 more than actual expenses (provided the money comes from a permissible source), athletes to be employed at the school’s summer camps, and other benefits related to academic support and medical expenses are examples of less-restrictive variations of amateurism. The plaintiffs say the proposed cost-of-attendance stipend and possible changes allowing athletes to use their name, image and likeness to promote commercial businesses also suggest a less-restrictive alternative to the no-pay rules.
Yet, the O’Bannon lawyers wrote, “the product of these college sports is as popular (and more lucrative) than ever.”
In other words, if paying players will be apocalyptic for the sport, as the organization and others have alleged would occur if the plaintiffs prevail, resulting in a dramatic drop in public interest, how is it that the payments already permitted by NCAA rules and contemplated by the player stipend being pushed by Mike Slive and others won’t?
I’ll hang up and listen for your answer, Donald Remy.
“We are striving to make certain that in this 21st Century student-athletes are offered opportunities for a modern experience and compete in a healthy and safe environment,” Remy said. “Meanwhile, the plaintiffs are seeking to separate certain student-athletes from their peers and make them employees.”
You make that sound so dirty. Aren’t coaches and school presidents employees?