Do you support allowing college athletes to be paid for ''their likeness''?

[funhusker]

3 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

 

You said "preventing unfair business practices" as opposed to illegal or unconstitutional business practices.  In other words, if you think that it's "unfair" that a male soccer player gets paid more than a female soccer player, it's ok for the government to step in, take over and determine what is "fair". Sorry, but I don't ascribe to statist political and economic ideology such as communism, fascism and socialism. 

Have you actually read this bill?  I attached the link.

 

It states none of that.  It is a bill that promotes free market and capitalism....

 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

 

edit: What if the local neighborhood association does not allow lemonade stands on the driveways of houses.  But the city makes a law that says children have the right to build money-making temporary structures on their parents property?  Is that a government takeover, aka communism?

[Nebfanatic]

5 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

 

 

No I was replying to the reply directly quoting the $1.1 billion that the NCAA "made" and how he liked the idea, even though it was a dumb idea because most of the money already goes back to the universities.

 

Broadcasters don't deserve the right to make money to provide the service of letting you watch the game on TV?  They are paying for the right to do so and it is up to them to figure out to make money over their expenses.  That money they pay goes to AD budgets and is used for the benefit of the athletic programs and the student athletes.

 

 

 

You must have missed the part about merchandise sales......

 

 

Also, you think the football players are getting a proportional benefit of the 50 million dollars a year we are raking in from BTN right now? Please.

[Moiraine]

4 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

 

You said "preventing unfair business practices" as opposed to illegal or unconstitutional business practices.  In other words, if you think that it's "unfair" that a male soccer player gets paid more than a female soccer player, it's ok for the government to step in, take over and determine what is "fair". Sorry, but I don't ascribe to statist political and economic ideology such as communism, fascism and socialism. 

 

 

You’re nitpicking over a word, but there have been plenty of laws created that were based on fairness. Amendments too.

 

You go off topic a lot. We aren’t talking about men getting paid more than women. We’re talking about athletes being able to make any $ at all on their likeness.

[K9Buck]

4 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Have you actually read this bill?  I attached the link.

 

It states none of that.  It is a bill that promotes free market and capitalism....

 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206

 

edit: What if the local neighborhood association does not allow lemonade stands on the driveways of houses.  But the city makes a law that says children have the right to build money-making temporary structures on their parents property?  Is that a government takeover, aka communism?

 

Universities do seemingly have a monopoly on athletics.  I agree with "deregulating" it, but I'm skeptical that the California legislature will stop at that and may want to continue to determine how collegiate sports should be administered and who should get paid and how much, etc.  I may very well be wrong.  

[Nebfanatic]

Just now, K9Buck said:

 

Universities do seemingly have a monopoly on athletics.  I agree with "deregulating" it, but I'm skeptical that the California legislature will stop at that and may want to continue to determine how collegiate sports should be administered and who should get paid and how much, etc.  I may very well be wrong.  

Yea maybe you should wait for something like that to actually happen instead of just assumimg the worse and fearmongering.

[K9Buck]

Just now, Moiraine said:

 

 

You’re nitpicking over a word, but there have been plenty of laws created that were based on fairness. Amendments too.

 

You go off topic a lot. We aren’t talking about men getting paid more than women. We’re talking about athletes being able to make any $ at all on their likeness.

 

You keep bringing up "fairness", hence my responses.  You sound like a socialist. 

[funhusker]

1 minute ago, K9Buck said:

 

Universities do seemingly have a monopoly on athletics.  I agree with "deregulating" it, but I'm skeptical that the California legislature will stop at that and may want to continue to determine how collegiate sports should be administered and who should get paid and how much, etc.  I may very well be wrong.  

Then you are scared of something that doesn't currently exist.  I'm sorry about that, nothing we can do...

[K9Buck]

Just now, Nebfanatic said:

Yea maybe you should wait for something like that to actually happen instead of just assumimg the worse and fearmongering.

 

Perhaps.  What you call "fear mongering" I call conjecture. 

[Nebfanatic]

Just now, K9Buck said:

 

You keep bringing up "fairness", hence my responses.  You sound like a socialist. 

You sound like a socialist. How is it capitalistic at all to prevent players from capitalizing on their likeness? This is the definition of free market you are debating against.

[Moiraine]

I feel like I’m in a class on how to use straw man arguments.

 

 

YoU tHiNk iT’s uNfAiR????!!??  WeLl maYbE u ShOulD MOvE to CHiNa SiNcE you WanT US to bE CoMmuNiST!!!!!212

[K9Buck]

Just now, funhusker said:

Then you are scared of something that doesn't currently exist.  I'm sorry about that, nothing we can do...

 

I'm not "scared" of anything.   I'm simply speculating as to how college athletics may change. 

[Moiraine]

1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

You sound like a socialist. How is it capitalistic at all to prevent players from capitalizing on their likeness? This is the definition of free market you are debating against.

 

 

Thanks. This conversation is ridiculous.

[K9Buck]

Just now, Nebfanatic said:

You sound like a socialist. How is it capitalistic at all to prevent players from capitalizing on their likeness? This is the definition of free market you are debating against.

 

I've repeatedly stated my SUPPORT for letting players be paid as much as they can get.

[K9Buck]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

I feel like I’m in a class on how to use straw man arguments.

 

 

YoU tHiNk iT’s uNfAiR????!!??  WeLl maYbE u ShOulD MOvE to CHiNa SiNcE you WanT US to bE CoMmuNiST!!!!!212

 

As I suspected, you are a far-left socialist that believes government should run everything under the sun to make it "fair".  You probably work in government or education. 

[funhusker]

3 minutes ago, K9Buck said:

 

I'm not "scared" of anything.   I'm simply speculating as to how college athletics may change. 

But the law that you started this discussion with does not allow for the changes that you are skeptical of.

 

I'm concerned with the future of California athletes if this passes also.  But not because the government is telling them what to do, which it isn't.  But the NCAA will most likely be able to suspend them no matter what the law says until a huge court battle.  Meanwhile, a few kids will get "rich" at the expense of the team's NCAA membership...