Should college athletes be paid?

[HawgGoneIt]

18 minutes ago, imaGoodBoyNow said:

Ill answer that question to your  question with another question 

 

 

should pop Warner teams pay their players?

Exactly. 

There is always a next. 

A lot of people profit off of a lot of stuff a lot of the time. 

Under The Radar profits in some form on their videos of high school and pop warner players. 

Should those players then get a cut? 

 

Where does this end? 

So now, they have voted to allow amateur athletes in college to profit in some form or fashion from a symbiotic relationship they have with their college and the NCAA. 

Next they'll be coming for the NFHS and the symbiotic relationship that those players have with their schools.

 

 

[RedZone]

NOT Rutgers ATHs.....they should repay all their scholarship money and be fined.

#hahahaha

 

[imaGoodBoyNow]

10 minutes ago, RedZone said:

NOT Rutgers ATHs.....they should repay all their scholarship money and be fined.

#hahahaha

 

And here’s the first Pos Troll in the. Thread. Congrats 🎉🎈🎊🍾 

[PrepForce]

1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Exactly. 

There is always a next. 

A lot of people profit off of a lot of stuff a lot of the time. 

Under The Radar profits in some form on their videos of high school and pop warner players. 

Should those players then get a cut? 

 

Where does this end? 

So now, they have voted to allow amateur athletes in college to profit in some form or fashion from a symbiotic relationship they have with their college and the NCAA. 

Next they'll be coming for the NFHS and the symbiotic relationship that those players have with their schools.

 

 

Someone sent this to me so here I am as this is a subject I feel very strongly about. Yes every person alive should be able to make money off their skill regardless of age. Why should this not be the case.  Prep Force was originally built to do just what you described UTR do because I was sick of seeing grown men harass kids just so they could profit while the kids themselves couldn't. PF is built so that every player's profile can be controlled by the player themselves and tracked and the revenue was going to be split so they would make money when people visited their profile. I had a call with the NCAA and asked them about this set up as I was not trying to jeopardize any players eligibility. They would not give me a straight answer and said we won't rule until we are made to, but what they said hand me laughing at them. I was going to find some athlete that wasn't good enough for it to matter and push forward but my partner is very tied to a major college program and didn't want to take the risk that somehow the school would be tied in. I detailed it all here when the De La Haye story broke.

http://www.prepforce.com/pf_blog/front-page/donald-de-la-haye-the-latest-to-show-the-ncaa-hypocrisy/

This new law is what needs to happen. It lets the school keep their money that is player independent so they shouldn't complain, while allowing the athletes to make their own. What they know and don't want to admit is that they will lose advertising money as some brands would rather go directly to the athlete. As I tweeted the other day the people that act like this will only effect a few players don't understand the current landscape of social media marketing and influencers. All of these athletes regardless of sport usually have big enough social media accounts and influence to be able to get paid. Donald De La Haye showed that even a college kicker can make enough that he would rather do that then keep his scholarship/place on the team. Will the big stars make more than a backup cornerback? Absolutely. Just don't think for one second some local business wouldn't love to be able to pay that backup cornerback/track and field/lacrosse a couple hundred bucks to get them down to their store or to post about them on their IG account. For a lot of athletes especially those that come from poor backgrounds that little bit will make a big difference. I would be willing to bet the large majority saying this is a bad idea don't even understand how it works. I overheard someone talking about it the other day and they thought it meant the schools had to pay. 

 

[HawgGoneIt]

20 minutes ago, PrepForce said:

Someone sent this to me so here I am as this is a subject I feel very strongly about. Yes every person alive should be able to make money off their skill regardless of age. Why should this not be the case.  Prep Force was originally built to do just what you described UTR do because I was sick of seeing grown men harass kids just so they could profit while the kids themselves couldn't. PF is built so that every player's profile can be controlled by the player themselves and tracked and the revenue was going to be split so they would make money when people visited their profile. I had a call with the NCAA and asked them about this set up as I was not trying to jeopardize any players eligibility. They would not give me a straight answer and said we won't rule until we are made to, but what they said hand me laughing at them. I was going to find some athlete that wasn't good enough for it to matter and push forward but my partner is very tied to a major college program and didn't want to take the risk that somehow the school would be tied in. I detailed it all here when the De La Haye story broke.

http://www.prepforce.com/pf_blog/front-page/donald-de-la-haye-the-latest-to-show-the-ncaa-hypocrisy/

This new law is what needs to happen. It lets the school keep their money that is player independent so they shouldn't complain, while allowing the athletes to make their own. What they know and don't want to admit is that they will lose advertising money as some brands would rather go directly to the athlete. As I tweeted the other day the people that act like this will only effect a few players don't understand the current landscape of social media marketing and influencers. All of these athletes regardless of sport usually have big enough social media accounts and influence to be able to get paid. Donald De La Haye showed that even a college kicker can make enough that he would rather do that then keep his scholarship/place on the team. Will the big stars make more than a backup cornerback? Absolutely. Just don't think for one second some local business wouldn't love to be able to pay that backup cornerback/track and field/lacrosse a couple hundred bucks to get them down to their store or to post about them on their IG account. For a lot of athletes especially those that come from poor backgrounds that little bit will make a big difference. I would be willing to bet the large majority saying this is a bad idea don't even understand how it works. I overheard someone talking about it the other day and they thought it meant the schools had to pay. 

 

So, what if the colleges now say, pay your own way then? Or, perhaps they just cut the amounts they give for scholarships. 

 

I'm not saying one way is right or wrong, just saying that there is always a next. Today, California has voted to allow amateur athletes to make profits from what is in fact a symbiotic relationship. 

The school needs the athlete and the athlete needs the school. They survive together off of each other. It's not like the athlete gets nothing from the relationship. They get tons of exposure which is pretty well priceless, they get their education paid for. They get personal trainers to continue their training throughout their time at college. They get stipends. They get a lot already. 

Without the school, the athlete couldn't get the exposure that would allow for them to make money from their likeness or autograph. Without the athlete, the school couldn't give scholarships, stipends and other forms of "pay." 

You actually do touch on schools stand to lose something here. Potential advertising dollars that could go directly to an athlete. What will be the impact of that loss of revenue on scholarships that are for other sports that don't generate the same revenues? 

The main argument I see from most folks, is that the NCAA makes millions so the student athlete should make something too. Yet, we ignore the fact that the athlete is getting a lot from the NCAA, and the school already. 

Then we ignore the precedent that it sets for "the next." 

It's easy to get stuck on something like you have. "It's that kids God given gift, so that kid should be allowed to profit from it." It's very easy to just think that far and stop. Where does that stop though? Does it go all the way to pop warner as more and more folks are finding ways to promote and profit from children? 

Do you cut it off at adulthood, which would be college kids? 

What if you say, "Ok, adulthood then."? Who is to stop someone from building from the precedent down to age 13 anyway though? Then, down to 8? 

 

 

[imaGoodBoyNow]

34 minutes ago, PrepForce said:

Someone sent this to me so here I am as this is a subject I feel very strongly about. Yes every person alive should be able to make money off their skill regardless of age. Why should this not be the case.  Prep Force was originally built to do just what you described UTR do because I was sick of seeing grown men harass kids just so they could profit while the kids themselves couldn't. PF is built so that every player's profile can be controlled by the player themselves and tracked and the revenue was going to be split so they would make money when people visited their profile. I had a call with the NCAA and asked them about this set up as I was not trying to jeopardize any players eligibility. They would not give me a straight answer and said we won't rule until we are made to, but what they said hand me laughing at them. I was going to find some athlete that wasn't good enough for it to matter and push forward but my partner is very tied to a major college program and didn't want to take the risk that somehow the school would be tied in. I detailed it all here when the De La Haye story broke.

http://www.prepforce.com/pf_blog/front-page/donald-de-la-haye-the-latest-to-show-the-ncaa-hypocrisy/

This new law is what needs to happen. It lets the school keep their money that is player independent so they shouldn't complain, while allowing the athletes to make their own. What they know and don't want to admit is that they will lose advertising money as some brands would rather go directly to the athlete. As I tweeted the other day the people that act like this will only effect a few players don't understand the current landscape of social media marketing and influencers. All of these athletes regardless of sport usually have big enough social media accounts and influence to be able to get paid. Donald De La Haye showed that even a college kicker can make enough that he would rather do that then keep his scholarship/place on the team. Will the big stars make more than a backup cornerback? Absolutely. Just don't think for one second some local business wouldn't love to be able to pay that backup cornerback/track and field/lacrosse a couple hundred bucks to get them down to their store or to post about them on their IG account. For a lot of athletes especially those that come from poor backgrounds that little bit will make a big difference. I would be willing to bet the large majority saying this is a bad idea don't even understand how it works. I overheard someone talking about it the other day and they thought it meant the schools had to pay. 

 

I’m coming after @PrepForce and @PrepGridiron y’all definitely profiting Big time money with putting these players on your polls, so y’all should be paying the players too

[HawgGoneIt]

Now, we will have created a situation where football is like Honeybooboo, where some crackhead mom and/or dad is smoking crack off their kid's money. 

Etc. 

There are a lot of moving parts and I think there could be a lot more of an impact than just meets the eye here. 

I won't even begin to pretend to know exactly how a university spends every dollar they make off of sports, but, I figure it to be much like a public high school has to spend a lot of theirs just on a larger scale. 

 

 

 

 

 

[HawgGoneIt]

12 minutes ago, imaGoodBoyNow said:

I’m coming after @PrepForce and @PrepGridiron y’all definitely profiting Big time money with putting these players on your polls, so y’all should be paying the players too

Bro, you're an amateur poster yourself. You should get paid too! Your god given talent is generating clicks from trolling on a high school football website. 

You should be able to profit from that. A cut of the advertising revenue should go to you directly. Maybe Zoosk would want to pay you directly for wearing that pink romper suit while trolling Louisiana football threads. 

Who cares if it forces Prepgridiron to have to come out of pocket for server fees?! 

[imaGoodBoyNow]

22 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Now, we will have created a situation where football is like Honeybooboo, where some crackhead mom and/or dad is smoking crack off their kid's money. 

Etc. 

There are a lot of moving parts and I think there could be a lot more of an impact than just meets the eye here. 

I won't even begin to pretend to know exactly how a university spends every dollar they make off of sports, but, I figure it to be much like a public high school has to spend a lot of theirs just on a larger scale. 

 

 

 

 

 

I just don’t see a high school paying a kid, private’s could probably offer full athletic scholarships to all players but Publics are different, what can you offer a kid? Money?? Shit if I’m a football player I’m playing football where the monies at, 

 

its a slippery slope, most schools can not afford to pay players so the schools that do you know damn well everyone in that area will attend the schools that are paying cash

[Wosinc]

3 hours ago, westbankeagle said:

Dang it I wasted my 500th post on something constructive. I really just wanted to make fun of Rummel fans who didn't attend there.

Tough darts ...

[PrepForce]

15 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

So, what if the colleges now say, pay your own way then? Or, perhaps they just cut the amounts they give for scholarships. 

 

I'm not saying one way is right or wrong, just saying that there is always a next. Today, California has voted to allow amateur athletes to make profits from what is in fact a symbiotic relationship. 

The school needs the athlete and the athlete needs the school. They survive together off of each other. It's not like the athlete gets nothing from the relationship. They get tons of exposure which is pretty well priceless, they get their education paid for. They get personal trainers to continue their training throughout their time at college. They get stipends. They get a lot already. 

Without the school, the athlete couldn't get the exposure that would allow for them to make money from their likeness or autograph. Without the athlete, the school couldn't give scholarships, stipends and other forms of "pay." 

The main argument I see from most folks, is that the NCAA makes millions so the student athlete should make something too. Yet, we ignore the fact that the athlete is getting a lot from the NCAA, and the school already. 

Then we ignore the precedent that it sets for "the next." 

It's easy to get stuck on something like you have. "It's that kids God given gift, so that kid should be allowed to profit from it." It's very easy to just think that far and stop. Where does that stop though? Does it go all the way to pop warner as more and more folks are finding ways to promote and profit from children? 

Do you cut it off at adulthood, which would be college kids? 

What if you say, "Ok, adulthood then."? Who is to stop someone from building from the precedent down to age 13 anyway though? Then, down to 8? 

 

 

I don't think I said it clear enough for you. ANY PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROFIT OF THEIR SKILL LEVEL REGARDLESS IF THEY PLAY A SPORT OR NOT. There is a 7 year old kid that makes 22 million dollars a year on YouTube simply opening and playing with toys. There are HS athletes with 100's of thousands of IG followers before they ever set foot on a college campus. Do you know what the value of that being wasted is? Do you really think Donald De La Haye was making all that YouTube money because he was the kicker for UCf? They weren't even national champions yet ;) Your pop warner or how young examples makes me think you think I am saying that a pop warner team should starting paying athletes to pay for their team or whatever. It is not. If there is a 7 year old football player good enough to generate millions of views he should be able to monetize those views. I have an honest question do you think all social media influencer advertising money should go to the platform itself and none to the influencers? 

As for getting rid of scholarships I would be all for it as long as the athletes get to unionize and do a reasonable profit share. I hate the argument that these kids are getting a free scholarship. First of all the scholarship itself costs the school nothing unless you think schools are at maximum capacity and operating perfectly. The cost of sticking a few athletes in a class cost a school nothing. Yes the housing, food, and staff are actual costs but those compared to the amount of revenue is miniscule except when you factor in the salaries of the football and basketball coaches. That's not to mention that a lot of that is covered by boosters and not the school itself. If the booster could just pay the kids themselves to ensure that certain players came those donations would shift from the school to the player just like advertising. If all of a sudden schools had to do profit share the salaries and facilities would plummet and poor Nick Saban would have to survive on only 2 million a year god forbid. The only reason these salaries and facilities are so high is because they have to spend all that booster $ somewhere. This doesn't even get into the fact that these scholarships are worthless for a portion of athletes. The only reason they can get into the school is because of their athletic not scholastic merits. The actual education they are getting is being wasted because they don't have the aptitude to benefit from it yet that is the one thing that is most pointed to. If given the choice of taking the "cost" of the scholarship or the actual dollars most athletes in the money generating sports should take the money. The schools don't care if they actually go to class as we have seen in numerous different scandals anyways. The schools only care they stay eligible. As an aside I think in most cases a college education is a joke but I digress. 

As for the exposure they get in college argument if you look at the top 10 NBA players that make the most from endorsements most of them didn't even go to college or went to a school that most wouldn't consider a non exposure school. They are the 10 highest paid players because they are really good pros. I have said for years if I was giving guidance to a 5 star HS basketball players I would tell them to go play pro in China rather than go to the NBA. What better exposure can you get then being an American star in China? That's over a billion people. Football players don't currently have an easy route but that is only because the system is stacked against them. Hell even a look at the top 10 NFL endorsers is littered with small school guys and guys that most would not consider college superstars. Do you honestly believe that if there was a viable football league that wasn't the NCAA that the guys that went that route wouldn't be found by NFL scouts. Hell look at the amount of guys that come from out of nowhere every year to get drafted just because they ran a 4.3 or showed ridiculous athleticism at a pro day.

[PrepForce]

42 minutes ago, imaGoodBoyNow said:

I’m coming after @PrepForce and @PrepGridiron y’all definitely profiting Big time money with putting these players on your polls, so y’all should be paying the players too

Believe me I tried :)

[HawgGoneIt]

Just now, imaGoodBoyNow said:

I just don’t see a high school paying a kid, private’s could probably offer full athletic scholarships to all players but Publics are different, what can you offer a kid? Money?? Shit if I’m a football player I’m playing football where the monies at, 

 

its a slippery slope, most schools can not afford to pay players so the schools that do you know damn well everyone in that area will attend the schools that are paying cash

Well, like Prepforce pointed out, it's not the schools that would be paying... directly. 

We're talking about allowing athletes to sign direct contracts with Nike or Adidas. Allowing them to advertise themselves as a Packer or a Fighting Irish or a VFW rec league player. 

That would probably hurt the schools indirectly. Like schools get uniforms from Nike. Now Nike can go directly to the kid and cut out the AD. Etc. 

It really is tough to quantify the potential impact. Laws always have unintended side effects, and they always set precedent for the next. That is all I'm saying. 

[PrepForce]

18 minutes ago, imaGoodBoyNow said:

I just don’t see a high school paying a kid, private’s could probably offer full athletic scholarships to all players but Publics are different, what can you offer a kid? Money?? Shit if I’m a football player I’m playing football where the monies at, 

 

its a slippery slope, most schools can not afford to pay players so the schools that do you know damn well everyone in that area will attend the schools that are paying cash

Why even bring up high schools paying players to play? That is not what we are talking about.

[imaGoodBoyNow]

Just now, PrepForce said:

Why even bring up high schools paying players to play? That is not what we are talking about.

Because, why should college players be the only ones getting paid when these high school players risk as much injury to the game as these college players, 

[HawgGoneIt]

3 minutes ago, PrepForce said:

I don't think I said it clear enough for you. ANY PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROFIT OF THEIR SKILL LEVEL REGARDLESS IF THEY PLAY A SPORT OR NOT. There is a 7 year old kid that makes 22 million dollars a year on YouTube simply opening and playing with toys. There are HS athletes with 100's of thousands of IG followers before they ever set foot on a college campus. Do you know what the value of that being wasted is? Do you really think Donald De La Haye was making all that YouTube money because he was the kicker for UCf? They weren't even national champions yet Your pop warner or how young examples makes me think you think I am saying that a pop warner team should starting paying athletes to pay for their team or whatever. It is not. If there is a 7 year old football player good enough to generate millions of views he should be able to monetize those views. I have an honest question do you think all social media influencer advertising money should go to the platform itself and none to the influencers? 

As for getting rid of scholarships I would be all for it as long as the athletes get to unionize and do a reasonable profit share. I hate the argument that these kids are getting a free scholarship. First of all the scholarship itself costs the school nothing unless you think schools are at maximum capacity and operating perfectly. The cost of sticking a few athletes in a class cost a school nothing. Yes the housing, food, and staff are actual costs but those compared to the amount of revenue is miniscule except when you factor in the salaries of the football and basketball coaches. That's not to mention that a lot of that is covered by boosters and not the school itself. If the booster could just pay the kids themselves to ensure that certain players came those donations would shift from the school to the player just like advertising. If all of a sudden schools had to do profit share the salaries and facilities would plummet and poor Nick Saban would have to survive on only 2 million a year god forbid. The only reason these salaries and facilities are so high is because they have to spend all that booster $ somewhere. This doesn't even get into the fact that these scholarships are worthless for a portion of athletes. The only reason they can get into the school is because of their athletic not scholastic merits. The actual education they are getting is being wasted because they don't have the aptitude to benefit from it yet that is the one thing that is most pointed to. If given the choice of taking the "cost" of the scholarship or the actual dollars most athletes in the money generating sports should take the money. The schools don't care if they actually go to class as we have seen in numerous different scandals anyways. The schools only care they stay eligible. As an aside I think in most cases a college education is a joke but I digress. 

As for the exposure they get in college argument if you look at the top 10 NBA players that make the most from endorsements most of them didn't even go to college or went to a school that most wouldn't consider a non exposure school. They are the 10 highest paid players because they are really good pros. I have said for years if I was giving guidance to a 5 star HS basketball players I would tell them to go play pro in China rather than go to the NBA. What better exposure can you get then being an American star in China? That's over a billion people. Football players don't currently have an easy route but that is only because the system is stacked against them. Hell even a look at the top 10 NFL endorsers is littered with small school guys and guys that most would not consider college superstars. Do you honestly believe that if there was a viable football league that wasn't the NCAA that the guys that went that route wouldn't be found by NFL scouts. Hell look at the amount of guys that come from out of nowhere every year to get drafted just because they ran a 4.3 or showed ridiculous athleticism at a pro day.

I understood that you said any age.

I was pointing out that, most people aren't going that far. However this does set precedent for the next, which could or would be any age kid being exploited by their parents or the youtube platform or any other numerous folks lined up to exploit and profit from the kids. 

Personally, I dislike social media influencers, but, that's just me. I don't like paying for a ticket to the movie theater and seeing that the main actor is holding a pepsi perfectly so that the label is an ad. Why should I have to buy a ticket to see a commercial? 

Lol.

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

5 hours ago, 181pl said:

F#CK NO!

 

They get a free education, good, housing, meals, stipends, etc.

 

If so, it should only be to increase the stipends to maybe $2k per month, which is plenty beer $ for a college kid.

 

It ain't FREE, you have commitments, practice, hosting recruits, community outreach, practice, off season condition, in season conditioning, off season strength/agility, yoga, Pilates, leadership development, study hall, two advisors (academic/athletic), classes, team bonding.

It's a job, btw my kid just got a $1000 check in the mail from the NCAA for something to the effect that it's a "plantation" up there, you may wanna evolve here Homeslice.

P.S. if we break it down, wanna bet, it's less than minimum wage while NCAA is getting rich... the Power 5 is currently paying out a stipend. 5000 a academic calendar based on whether athlete is regional, local or long distance from home.

BGW

BGW

[PrepForce]

41 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Now, we will have created a situation where football is like Honeybooboo, where some crackhead mom and/or dad is smoking crack off their kid's money. 

Etc. 

There are a lot of moving parts and I think there could be a lot more of an impact than just meets the eye here. 

I won't even begin to pretend to know exactly how a university spends every dollar they make off of sports, but, I figure it to be much like a public high school has to spend a lot of theirs just on a larger scale. 

 

 

 

 

 

If you are trying to prevent athletes from having shitty parents make them all get Coogan accounts. I hate to break the bad news to you but there are more parents out here pimping their kids today on social media that have nothing to do with sports than I imagine you could ever realize. I am not saying it's right but I am saying at least they aren't prevented from getting paid based on their work. Just imagine all these sports parents out here riding their kids for nothing lol.

[PrepForce]

15 minutes ago, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

It ain't FREE, you have commitments, practice, hosting recruits, community outreach, practice, off season condition, in season conditioning, off season strength/agility, yoga, Pilates, leadership development, study hall, two advisors (academic/athletic), classes, team bonding.

It's a job, btw my kid just got a $1000 check in the mail from the NCAA for something to the effect that it's a "plantation" up there, you may wanna evolve here Homeslice.

P.S. if we break it down, wanna bet, it's less than minimum wage while NCAA is getting rich... the Power 5 is currently paying out a stipend. 5000 a academic calendar based on whether athlete is regional, local or long distance from home.

BGW

BGW

Don't forget they are walking billboards for whatever brands their school signs deals with. Let a kid show up wearing the wrong brand and see what happens. All this it's free is just nonsense. 

[Columbiafan]

58 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

So, what if the colleges now say, pay your own way then? Or, perhaps they just cut the amounts they give for scholarships. 

 

I'm not saying one way is right or wrong, just saying that there is always a next. Today, California has voted to allow amateur athletes to make profits from what is in fact a symbiotic relationship. 

The school needs the athlete and the athlete needs the school. They survive together off of each other. It's not like the athlete gets nothing from the relationship. They get tons of exposure which is pretty well priceless, they get their education paid for. They get personal trainers to continue their training throughout their time at college. They get stipends. They get a lot already. 

Without the school, the athlete couldn't get the exposure that would allow for them to make money from their likeness or autograph. Without the athlete, the school couldn't give scholarships, stipends and other forms of "pay." 

You actually do touch on schools stand to lose something here. Potential advertising dollars that could go directly to an athlete. What will be the impact of that loss of revenue on scholarships that are for other sports that don't generate the same revenues? 

The main argument I see from most folks, is that the NCAA makes millions so the student athlete should make something too. Yet, we ignore the fact that the athlete is getting a lot from the NCAA, and the school already. 

Then we ignore the precedent that it sets for "the next." 

It's easy to get stuck on something like you have. "It's that kids God given gift, so that kid should be allowed to profit from it." It's very easy to just think that far and stop. Where does that stop though? Does it go all the way to pop warner as more and more folks are finding ways to promote and profit from children? 

Do you cut it off at adulthood, which would be college kids? 

What if you say, "Ok, adulthood then."? Who is to stop someone from building from the precedent down to age 13 anyway though? Then, down to 8? 

 

 

If the NFL would establish a development league like MLB or NBA have then the athletes wouldn't need the NCAA quite much anymore

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

1 minute ago, Columbiafan said:

If the NFL would establish a development league like MLB or NBA have then the athletes wouldn't need the NCAA quite much anymore

Hell, NFL has the best farm league in the world and it's free... why start a farm system?

BGW

[imaGoodBoyNow]

All I know is if colleges start paying players I’m quitting my job and will be Rutgers next years starting QB, 

[PrepForce]

16 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I understood that you said any age.

I was pointing out that, most people aren't going that far. However this does set precedent for the next, which could or would be any age kid being exploited by their parents or the youtube platform or any other numerous folks lined up to exploit and profit from the kids. 

Personally, I dislike social media influencers, but, that's just me. I don't like paying for a ticket to the movie theater and seeing that the main actor is holding a pepsi perfectly so that the label is an ad. Why should I have to buy a ticket to see a commercial? 

Lol.

You do realize high school kids are currently being exploited by their family/handlers right now right? 

As for your movie example. Well then you have a problem with the companies and not the employees. In your scenario the school is the company and the athlete is the employee. These athletes aren't out hear recommending they go get the local Ford dealership to sponsor 4th down conversions.

[Columbiafan]

1 minute ago, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

Hell, NFL has the best farm league in the world and it's free... why start a farm system?

BGW

Maybe as a way to guarantee studs earlier 

 

Like someone like Cincinnati or Miami could have tried signing Trevor lawarance out of high school and develop him for the future instead of hoping they get number 1 pick when it comes time to draft him

[Columbiafan]

1 minute ago, imaGoodBoyNow said:

All I know is if colleges start paying players I’m quitting my job and will be Rutgers next years starting QB, 

Would need college eligibility LMAO