Part of the problem with the NIL debate is that the older generation doesn’t really understand how most college athletes are going to monetize their names. Yesterday’s Senate hearing was a clear indication of that.
Ummm… probably not.
Wicker did a fine job on his own, too, in that regard.
This is how Wicker thinks.
My first thought upon reading that was “yeah, so?”. My second thought was that there are probably more than a few Ole Miss players getting more than that already. Which is why this was the stupid cherry on top of the sundae.
Schools aren’t going to be compensated for the social media value individual athletes generate, so there’s nothing there to be pulled away. Nor are those $100 handshakes going to have an impact on an athletic department. As far as Nike deciding to spend $100000 on a stud athlete instead of a school — assuming for the sake of argument that’s the case, something there’s no real world indication for — isn’t that what the free market is supposed to be about?
And as far as threatening women’s sports, that’s a school’s call. Nobody is putting a gun to their heads. We’re watching athletic departments across the country deal with declines in revenue because of the coronavirus. I haven’t seen a single one slash women’s sports to the detriment of everything else; cuts, when they’ve come, have been widespread.
As I’ve said before, tying the fate of women’s sports to NIL compensation is simply an argument that college athletes have the financial burden of supporting an athletic department instead of the institution. That is bullshit.