Les's End the NCAA Charade of "Amateur Athletes"

Former NCAA player's suit threatens Hollywood

This headline on Yahoo! News is more hype than fact.

Court cases typically are settled with the narrowest possible precedent. 

But there are a couple of interesting issues here that aren't being explored well.

One is the complete duplicity of the NCAA.

NCAA sports is a multi-billion dollar business.

Everyone makes lots of money.

Coaches, sponsors, promoters, the schools, the media.

Thousands of people are employed and made decent incomes.

The professional sports leagues, especially the NFL and the NBA, get a free farm system.

Everyone gets something, that is, except the talent.

What do they get?

IF they were recruited, they get a scholarship to maintain the illusion of the "student athlete" while devoting most of their emotional energy toward athletics rather than academics.

They get a lottery ticket for making it as a pro.

What this lawsuit is about, in reality, is that the talent who makes all of this profit possible gets nothing. The defendants are making it a 1st amendment issue because, frankly, it is the only way they have a chance of winning. But it isn't a first amendment issue.

Let's end the charade about "amateur athletics" being somehow more pure. The idea of "amateur status" actually originated in Victorian England as a means for the rich guys to exclude more talented, but "professional" athletes from their games. Those "professionals" couldn't afford to play for free, so a class system was established to demean their "professional" status as somehow mercenary.

The Olympics have gotten over it. Professional athletes routinely compete, because they want to attract the very best competitors.

Here is an idea. As radical as it sounds.

Pay them. 

Create a fund, as a percentage of gate, licensing and other revenue, that is equally distributed to the players. Don't put it in escrow or anything, just give them the money.

Idea #2 -

Play then school. Let's acknowledge that this is an entertainment industry. Let the athlete opt to play for his period of eligibility and then be eligible to get x years of scholarship at any NCAA school later. That is a win for everyone. If the player gets drafted, he can pursue that career, but he has something to fall back on if he is injured or cut. Some players might not pursue the  scholarship. And by making the scholarship eligible for any NCAA school, a more mature person can make more mature decisions about what he wants to pursue.

Simply put, if we treated the players fairly, this issue would have never come up. That is all Keller wants.