Devils Advocate: Would paying players really help keeping top talent in college sports?
Options
MeekMonizzLLLLLLe14
Members Posts: 15,337 ✭✭✭✭✭
I think players should get a cut but think about it. The only main reason to give a players a piece of the financial pie is so they will actually stay long term in college. But will a couple hundred dollars a month really keep a one and done from staying multiple years. If top players don't stay signifigantly longer (extra 1 to 2 years) then ratings wont go up and attendnace wont go up. That means if you are a greedy person working at the NCAA or their schools their is not benifit in paying for players because your not getting any more money in your pocket.
I still think players would chase the bigger money in the pros if they are top notch players instead of developing in the college game and making it more competitive in D-1 athletics in all sports. What do you guys think?
I still think players would chase the bigger money in the pros if they are top notch players instead of developing in the college game and making it more competitive in D-1 athletics in all sports. What do you guys think?
Comments
-
A trust-fund or "escrow" type system might help.
There should be a formula that pays players a certain percentage of profits from bowl games, tournament appearances, etc.
But they don't get the money unless they spend a pre-determined/pre-negotiated amount of time at the school.
For example, a five-star recruit QB signs on for a "All-American Tier" trust fund for 3 years. If he stays the 3 years he gets 75% of his fund. If he stays 4 years (but doesn't graduate) he gets 85%. If he grads, he gets 100%.
If he goes pro before meeting the minimum (or gets kicked out or becomes ineligible) he gets none of it.
The maximum should be in the six figure range for all FBS schools (paid for via a "? " from the school, the conference and the NCAA collectively so big schools won't have an advantage.)
The only problem is that less popular sports (i.e. softball, golf, women's anything, hockey, etc.) would have to be included somehow to be fair.
I guess they could get paid too based on the amount of money their sports generate for the NCAA. -
a poll should be made... good spinoff thread tho
-
greenwood1921 wrote: »A trust-fund or "escrow" type system might help.
There should be a formula that pays players a certain percentage of profits from bowl games, tournament appearances, etc.
But they don't get the money unless they spend a pre-determined/pre-negotiated amount of time at the school.
For example, a five-star recruit QB signs on for a "All-American Tier" trust fund for 3 years. If he stays the 3 years he gets 75% of his fund. If he stays 4 years (but doesn't graduate) he gets 85%. If he grads, he gets 100%.
If he goes pro before meeting the minimum (or gets kicked out or becomes ineligible) he gets none of it.
The maximum should be in the six figure range for all FBS schools (paid for via a "? " from the school, the conference and the NCAA collectively so big schools won't have an advantage.)
The only problem is that less popular sports (i.e. softball, golf, women's anything, hockey, etc.) would have to be included somehow to be fair.
I guess they could get paid too based on the amount of money their sports generate for the NCAA.
but again how are you going to be competitive with the professional sports starting salaries where you get straight cash homie after taxes on some randy moss ? . some trush fund type ? ain't appealing as making pro bucks. likewise splitting bowl revenue which already is needed 100% for the schools in order to improve recruiting facilities will be hard to split. You would have to split that amongs 100 plus ncaa players or if demanded hundreds to of student athletes in all sports. -
Monizzle14 wrote: »greenwood1921 wrote: »A trust-fund or "escrow" type system might help.
There should be a formula that pays players a certain percentage of profits from bowl games, tournament appearances, etc.
But they don't get the money unless they spend a pre-determined/pre-negotiated amount of time at the school.
For example, a five-star recruit QB signs on for a "All-American Tier" trust fund for 3 years. If he stays the 3 years he gets 75% of his fund. If he stays 4 years (but doesn't graduate) he gets 85%. If he grads, he gets 100%.
If he goes pro before meeting the minimum (or gets kicked out or becomes ineligible) he gets none of it.
The maximum should be in the six figure range for all FBS schools (paid for via a "? " from the school, the conference and the NCAA collectively so big schools won't have an advantage.)
The only problem is that less popular sports (i.e. softball, golf, women's anything, hockey, etc.) would have to be included somehow to be fair.
I guess they could get paid too based on the amount of money their sports generate for the NCAA.
but again how are you going to be competitive with the professional sports starting salaries where you get straight cash homie after taxes on some randy moss ? . some trush fund type ? ain't appealing as making pro bucks. likewise splitting bowl revenue which already is needed 100% for the schools in order to improve recruiting facilities will be hard to split. You would have to split that amongs 100 plus ncaa players or if demanded hundreds to of student athletes in all sports.
Only about 30 players in basketball and football are guaranteed "big bucks" in the NBA and NFL per year.
If you're a 3rd round draft pick these days in the NFL you're getting like a 4 years 2.5 million dollar NON-guaranteed deal.
2nd round NBA picks have non-guaranteed contracts too.
Only a handful of amateur players are good enough to have guaranteed money waiting on them in the NFL.
Same goes for Baseball prospects who skip college altogether to make a few hundred grand a year in the minors riding the bus.
College sports isn't suffering because the top talents are going pro early, they're suffering from mid-tier pro prospects (who are projected as mid-round picks in the NFL or 2nd rounders in the NBA) because a few hundred grand of non-guaranteed money in the NFL is better than 0 dollars and a bunch of classes and exams in college.
The "elite" amateur talents have always left early and the NCAA didn't suffer. But now you got nikkas in college basketball who averaged 4 points per game as a freshman going one-and-done because they find out they could be a mid to late 1st round pick or early 2nd round pick.
And lol @ thinking these schools need "100%" of their bowl profits just to pay for facilities.
No.
That's a drop in the bucket, plus most of that is paid for by alumnus and donors. -
the schools these players play at cant offer more than an nfl contract can offer most the guys who are good enough to play there
-
I will assume you talking basketball and football as these are the money making sports in the NCAA. Would it keep the top talent? No, basketball first round talent are guaranteed millions even if they haven't proven a lot on limited minutes. You can be a one and done have a good march madness run and be first round pick based on potential. Schools will not be giving out their true worth because the bottom line is they are making a profit and they are using funds to pump back into non money making sports. Some of these college coaches are making more than some professional coaches. Top talent in major sports make more than the coaches, this will not happen as it messes up the system to make a profit.
Pretty much the same for football but the rules are setup for the players to stay 3 years. The NFL is making sure the NCAA does their minor league scouting tape film for them and the NCAA and teams will take that money to the bank. Imagine what Johnny Football is worth. So I will no it will it not make top talent stay. If you are truly top talent projected 1-3rd round you leaving after that third year because they will never pay them what they can make in the NFL -
greenwood1921 wrote: »Monizzle14 wrote: »greenwood1921 wrote: »A trust-fund or "escrow" type system might help.
There should be a formula that pays players a certain percentage of profits from bowl games, tournament appearances, etc.
But they don't get the money unless they spend a pre-determined/pre-negotiated amount of time at the school.
For example, a five-star recruit QB signs on for a "All-American Tier" trust fund for 3 years. If he stays the 3 years he gets 75% of his fund. If he stays 4 years (but doesn't graduate) he gets 85%. If he grads, he gets 100%.
If he goes pro before meeting the minimum (or gets kicked out or becomes ineligible) he gets none of it.
The maximum should be in the six figure range for all FBS schools (paid for via a "? " from the school, the conference and the NCAA collectively so big schools won't have an advantage.)
The only problem is that less popular sports (i.e. softball, golf, women's anything, hockey, etc.) would have to be included somehow to be fair.
I guess they could get paid too based on the amount of money their sports generate for the NCAA.
but again how are you going to be competitive with the professional sports starting salaries where you get straight cash homie after taxes on some randy moss ? . some trush fund type ? ain't appealing as making pro bucks. likewise splitting bowl revenue which already is needed 100% for the schools in order to improve recruiting facilities will be hard to split. You would have to split that amongs 100 plus ncaa players or if demanded hundreds to of student athletes in all sports.
Only about 30 players in basketball and football are guaranteed "big bucks" in the NBA and NFL per year.
If you're a 3rd round draft pick these days in the NFL you're getting like a 4 years 2.5 million dollar NON-guaranteed deal.
2nd round NBA picks have non-guaranteed contracts too.
Only a handful of amateur players are good enough to have guaranteed money waiting on them in the NFL.
Same goes for Baseball prospects who skip college altogether to make a few hundred grand a year in the minors riding the bus.
College sports isn't suffering because the top talents are going pro early, they're suffering from mid-tier pro prospects (who are projected as mid-round picks in the NFL or 2nd rounders in the NBA) because a few hundred grand of non-guaranteed money in the NFL is better than 0 dollars and a bunch of classes and exams in college.
The "elite" amateur talents have always left early and the NCAA didn't suffer. But now you got nikkas in college basketball who averaged 4 points per game as a freshman going one-and-done because they find out they could be a mid to late 1st round pick or early 2nd round pick.
And lol @ thinking these schools need "100%" of their bowl profits just to pay for facilities.
No.
That's a drop in the bucket, plus most of that is paid for by alumnus and donors.
well i kinda worded that wrong lol they might not need 100% of their cut after paying out their conference etc. but if im a college or part of the NCAA board why give players money if things wont really change enough to get me more money. and your absolutely right most players won't get big money. but the lure of the big money takes 3 times as many players leaving early than will actually even make the nba on rosters long term let along making big money.
And again im thinking from the NCAA perspective (which is full of greed and more greed and power). If i work for an NCAA school or their operations or various boards why do I want to come up with a complex system to pay players when financially it doesn't help me and it really won't affect the talent. Not to mention i will have to pay every athlete boy and girl the same wage. Cause if they don't they will prolly get more lawsuits. -
no not really, to the top talent is going to still chase tens of millions over thousands any day.
-
and i still have always believed that the reason they don't officially get paid is because of logistical/legal concerns, not because the schools just want to keep all the profit themselves. I don't know how they could just pick and choose who to pay. And would the walk-on 3rd string kicker get paid the same as the heisman candidate on the same team? You couldn't exactly have a pay scale. And some schools have more $ at their disposal than others, so are those big schools allowed to pay more? Is there going to be a salary cap on it next? Its just a ? to try to officially come up with a way of paying players. The best thing to do is just accept your unlimited meal cards, free, spacious dorms and apartments that average students can not live in, full time tudors, $50,000 in tuition, and the platform to showcase you skills to potential employers who will pay you millions.
If all that isn't enough to keep kids in school, then a few thousand dollars and a Suburban surely won't do the trick.
College is the best time of anyones life. I'd be on my Van Wilder/Jason White ? and try to stay forever if i could on a scholarship. -
no not really, to the top talent is going to still chase tens of millions over thousands any day.
exactly not to mention they are going after there dreams which is to be in the big leagues
-
and i still have always believed that the reason they don't officially get paid is because of logistical/legal concerns, not because the schools just want to keep all the profit themselves. I don't know how they could just pick and choose who to pay. And would the walk-on 3rd string kicker get paid the same as the heisman candidate on the same team? You couldn't exactly have a pay scale. And some schools have more $ at their disposal than others, so are those big schools allowed to pay more? Is there going to be a salary cap on it next? Its just a ? to try to officially come up with a way of paying players. The best thing to do is just accept your unlimited meal cards, free, spacious dorms and apartments that average students can not live in, full time tudors, $50,000 in tuition, and the platform to showcase you skills to potential employers who will pay you millions.
If all that isn't enough to keep kids in school, then a few thousand dollars and a Suburban surely won't do the trick.
College is the best time of anyones life. I'd be on my Van Wilder/Jason White ? and try to stay forever if i could on a scholarship.
That's like saying why doesn't an NFL kicker get Tom Brady money.
All the NCAA has to do is develop a formula that pays all lettermen on offense and defense a certain amount, second stringers a certain amount, etc.
It's a ? school. You mean to tell me there's nobody on a college campus smart enough to break down a fair pay structure.
They're just as many professors and other employees on campus as football players and they find a fair structure to pay them.
And again, it ain't about keeping guaranteed top 5 picks in college. They're gone - regardless.
But right now, every player good enough to play on the next level is being forced to choose between Nothing vs. Hundreds of thousands to Millions.
A pay structure changes that to Thousands to hundreds of thousands VS Hundreds of thousands to Millions.
And the profits are there. Even the smaller programs make mean profits because their expenses are much lower.
And most of the top programs are STATE SCHOOLS. So they get plenty of money from state taxes (not to mention endowment, donors, merchandise licensing, etc, etc.)
That "We're Rich but we can't afford to help you not be poor" ? is the OLDEST trick in the business book. -
greenwood1921 wrote: »and i still have always believed that the reason they don't officially get paid is because of logistical/legal concerns, not because the schools just want to keep all the profit themselves. I don't know how they could just pick and choose who to pay. And would the walk-on 3rd string kicker get paid the same as the heisman candidate on the same team? You couldn't exactly have a pay scale. And some schools have more $ at their disposal than others, so are those big schools allowed to pay more? Is there going to be a salary cap on it next? Its just a ? to try to officially come up with a way of paying players. The best thing to do is just accept your unlimited meal cards, free, spacious dorms and apartments that average students can not live in, full time tudors, $50,000 in tuition, and the platform to showcase you skills to potential employers who will pay you millions.
If all that isn't enough to keep kids in school, then a few thousand dollars and a Suburban surely won't do the trick.
College is the best time of anyones life. I'd be on my Van Wilder/Jason White ? and try to stay forever if i could on a scholarship.
That's like saying why doesn't an NFL kicker get Tom Brady money.
All the NCAA has to do is develop a formula that pays all lettermen on offense and defense a certain amount, second stringers a certain amount, etc.
It's a ? school. You mean to tell me there's nobody on a college campus smart enough to break down a fair pay structure.
They're just as many professors and other employees on campus as football players and they find a fair structure to pay them.
And again, it ain't about keeping guaranteed top 5 picks in college. They're gone - regardless.
But right now, every player good enough to play on the next level is being forced to choose between Nothing vs. Hundreds of thousands to Millions.
A pay structure changes that to Thousands to hundreds of thousands VS Hundreds of thousands to Millions.
And the profits are there. Even the smaller programs make mean profits because their expenses are much lower.
And most of the top programs are STATE SCHOOLS. So they get plenty of money from state taxes (not to mention endowment, donors, merchandise licensing, etc, etc.)
That "We're Rich but we can't afford to help you not be poor" ? is the OLDEST trick in the business book.
my question is how do you pay every single college athlete?
you probably can't, so my other question is how can you get a way with NOT paying every college athlete, but still paying others. Do the Uconn womens bball team get money b/c they are a revenue producing sport, but womens players at another school don't get money?
and even if you just pay based on 1st and 2nd stringers, what happens when the 2nd stringer takes over the position? does he get a pay bump? the other guy gets his pay cut? Or every 1st stringer in america gets a certain pay, regardless of position and playing time, and same for the backups?
And say they just pay football and basketball. Where does that money come from? Does every school kick in a certain % of revenue to one giant ? of money and it gets distributed that way? Or does each school pay its player based on what the school makes. There are just too many issues in my mind as to why it will never happen, and if it does happen, the payments will be so minimal that it really won't change much. -
You pay them based on the percentage of profits their sports bring in.
There are groups and some sports that don't offer scholarships at certain schools.
I.e. a school might have a scholarship program for baseball but not golf or rugby.
Is that fair?
Yes, it is. Because that school determined that it doesn't (or doesn't want to) profit from its golf or rugby team, so they don't bother giving out free tuition. -
Remember title IX
Anything you propose has to be in accordance to this law. For a break down........somewhat.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/interath.html
Secondly it will segregate financial offices nationwide.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-17/how-poor-students-subsidize-unworthy-college-sports.html
Check those two links and then give your ideas.
-
greenwood1921 wrote: »You pay them based on the percentage of profits their sports bring in.
There are groups and some sports that don't offer scholarships at certain schools.
I.e. a school might have a scholarship program for baseball but not golf or rugby.
Is that fair?
Yes, it is. Because that school determined that it doesn't (or doesn't want to) profit from its golf or rugby team, so they don't bother giving out free tuition.
the bolded would make sense in a perfect world but like caddo brought up title IX ain't nothing to ? with scholarships are one thing but money is another. Women are going to want equal pay and for sports like basketball where you usually have men and womens teams people will sue till both get equal pay.
also rugby isn't a NCAA sport its so violent that the NCAA won't even accept it in
-
"Equal pay for equal work" wouldn't matter in this situation because a female Basketball player would not be a member of the men's basketball team.
That's for corporate America.
Title IX deals mostly with how much funding the government gives to the programs.
The state wouldn't be paying these players -- the school, the NCAA, and the conferences would.
That's like saying Oklahoma would have to pay their women's softball coach just as much as Bob Stoops. -
The staying in school portion of the question only really fits Men's basketball. Players know they have to stay when they football or baseball.
To sort of "fix" that situation, the NBA has to change their rules. Allow players to come into the league after High School, but if they choose college, they have to stay 3 years. Guys like KD, Melo & Rose would have been top picks after High School. I see no reason for them to basically play the system for half a year and bounce to the NBA.
As far as paying the players, I would say pay every player on a basketball team the same & every football player (They should get more money than Basketball players) the same. But, base extra monies on incentives players get like GPA (for the Student Aspect) & Awards after the season is over (for the Athlete Aspect).
-
Student athletes shouldn't get paid anymore than they already are (scholarships), period. Regardless of sport.
-
The staying in school portion of the question only really fits Men's basketball. Players know they have to stay when they football or baseball.
To sort of "fix" that situation, the NBA has to change their rules. Allow players to come into the league after High School, but if they choose college, they have to stay 3 years. Guys like KD, Melo & Rose would have been top picks after High School. I see no reason for them to basically play the system for half a year and bounce to the NBA.
As far as paying the players, I would say pay every player on a basketball team the same & every football player (They should get more money than Basketball players) the same. But, base extra monies on incentives players get like GPA (for the Student Aspect) & Awards after the season is over (for the Athlete Aspect).
There are actually more prospects going from HS to the Pros in baseball than basketball.
But "ironically" nobody says much about it.
For example, Browns QB Josh Wheeden made a couple million straight out of high school with the Yankees farm system before going back to school and playing football for Okey Lite and then getting drafted in the NFL.
It's only an issue when "certain" types of players in "certain" sports do it.
*message* -
greenwood1921 wrote: »The staying in school portion of the question only really fits Men's basketball. Players know they have to stay when they football or baseball.
To sort of "fix" that situation, the NBA has to change their rules. Allow players to come into the league after High School, but if they choose college, they have to stay 3 years. Guys like KD, Melo & Rose would have been top picks after High School. I see no reason for them to basically play the system for half a year and bounce to the NBA.
As far as paying the players, I would say pay every player on a basketball team the same & every football player (They should get more money than Basketball players) the same. But, base extra monies on incentives players get like GPA (for the Student Aspect) & Awards after the season is over (for the Athlete Aspect).
There are actually more prospects going from HS to the Pros in baseball than basketball.
But "ironically" nobody says much about it.
For example, Browns QB Josh Wheeden made a couple million straight out of high school with the Yankees farm system before going back to school and playing football for Okey Lite and then getting drafted in the NFL.
It's only an issue when "certain" types of players in "certain" sports do it.
*message*
Agree to a certain extent.
1. Sheer numbers are on baseball's side. They have what 50 rounds or something for 32 teams. Ton of players.
2. Majority of baseball prospects have no impact on the MLB level for a few years because they're in the Minors, whereas a highly coveted hoop guy can come in & quickly change the fortunes of a team.
3. HS Baseball players aren't as high profiled as HS Basketball players.
@Bolded Truth -
greenwood1921 wrote: »"Equal pay for equal work" wouldn't matter in this situation because a female Basketball player would not be a member of the men's basketball team.
That's for corporate America.
Title IX deals mostly with how much funding the government gives to the programs.
The state wouldn't be paying these players -- the school, the NCAA, and the conferences would.
That's like saying Oklahoma would have to pay their women's softball coach just as much as Bob Stoops.
So the football players would be become state employees that are under contract or part time hourly employees. Lets say they are state employees. At that time they will fall under state HR rules and student unions. You think these universities want their athletes under a union.
And if these athletes want to be under a contract they will want to start negotiating for more money. Cause if I am a star player, That backup will not be making more than me. That goes back to student subsidizing the sport programs at these universities. -
"Brandon" Weeden,
Not that I give a ? tho. lol -
greenwood1921 wrote: »"Equal pay for equal work" wouldn't matter in this situation because a female Basketball player would not be a member of the men's basketball team.
That's for corporate America.
Title IX deals mostly with how much funding the government gives to the programs.
The state wouldn't be paying these players -- the school, the NCAA, and the conferences would.
That's like saying Oklahoma would have to pay their women's softball coach just as much as Bob Stoops.
So the football players would be become state employees that are under contract or part time hourly employees. Lets say they are state employees. At that time they will fall under state HR rules and student unions. You think these universities want their athletes under a union.
And if these athletes want to be under a contract they will want to start negotiating for more money. Cause if I am a star player, That backup will not be making more than me. That goes back to student subsidizing the sport programs at these universities.
Nope. Not employees at all. It's a trust fund. Nobody is getting paid while they play.
And again, the "state" is not paying for the fund.
The school (out of sports profits), the NCAA, and the conference.
Or just the NCAA, the conferences, and the Bowl/tournament organizations.
And like I said, the pay tiers will be prenegotiated and based on whether they become starters or based on the playing time they end up getting in their time at the school.
And like the pros and schollys, each school will have a cap on the pay tiers that they can give out.
It ain't as hard to figure out as y'all making it.
Y'all just falling for that Slave-master okey doke that its "too expensive" or too difficult or that it goes against "tradition".
If *anybody* on a college campus is being paid to be there, then please believe that *everybody* can be paid.
Hell all these "red tape" ? arguments could be made about the scholarships themselves.
That's a trade off with monetary value in itself, but somehow putting money in the players pockets at some point is "impossible"?
Funny how the pay questions never come up when players are given thousands of dollars worth of merchandise via gift-bags at bowl games or championship rings worth thousands when they win something.
From a legal and "title 9" standpoint, a lawyer could argue that "every student athlete" at Alabama should get a $10k iced out championship ring and not just the football players.
Foh.
-
Stole this from a Marquette law review paper.
The general perception has been that Title IX does apply, and female athletes would need to be compensated equitably in relation to their male peers. As ESPN writer Mechelle Voepel reported, “In regard to the concept of ‘pay-for-play,’ Title IX is generally seen as a substantial roadblock” that likely offers “no viable end-around Title IX to allow schools to pay only those athletes who are in profitable sports, which generally are football and men’s basketball.”
In his efforts to research a model to pay college athletes, Sports Illustrated writer George Dohrmann consulted with a tax attorney, two Title IX experts, an antitrust lawyer, a sports agent, and an accountant familiar with the nuances of athletic department financial records, along with current and former college athletes. When confronted with the question of whether a pay system could be devised that would allow male athletes to be paid without providing
equitably for female athletes, Dohrmann’s conclusion was no. After University of South Carolina head football coach Steve Spurrier garnered support from other SEC coaches for a plan to compensate players per game, even suggesting that the money come from coaches’ salaries, Atlanta Journal Constitution reporter Jeff Schultz reached a similar conclusion. He wrote, “Finding a fair and workable salary system that fits into Title IX regulations would be nearly impossible.” In turn, Lisa Horne, writing for Fox Sports News, reported that attorney Michael Buckner, an expert on NCAA enforcement said, “‘Any plan to pay student-athletes would have to adhere to federal law.’” Horne took that to mean, “If football players are paid, then somewhere, student-athletes in a women’s sport will also have to be compensated.”
George Dohrmann, Pay for Play: The Mission of Our Universities is to Educate, but College Sports is Big Business, and No One Wants Young Athletes Exploited
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1191778/index.htm.
Jeff Schultz, Spurrier’s Pay Petition Meaningless but Concept Has Merits,
http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/2011/06/02/spurriers-pay-pitchmeaningless-but-concept-has-merits/.
Lisa Horne, Pay for Play Could be Disastrous
http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/Paying-student-athletes-could-open-door-to-a-union-and-a-strike-072411.
In assessing where the resistance to paying college athletes within the athletic community came from, Billie Jean King wrote, “The real issue is not how much money the plan would cost, but how much control the colleges are willing to give up.” Significantly, this issue of control is reflected in the NCAA rules pertaining to compensation, where the NCAA does not take an outright stance against either professionalism or paying athletes. In NCAA Bylaw 12.02.3, “[a] professional athlete is one who receives any kind of payment, directly or indirectly, for athletics participation except as permitted by the governing legislation of the Association.” Similarly, “pay” is defined in NCAA Bylaw 12.02.2, as “the receipt of funds, awards or benefits not permitted by the governing legislation of the Association for participation in athletics.” Thus, the NCAA officials are not opposed to paying athletes. They are opposed to paying athletes under terms and conditions that they cannot control.
And before you go and try to use that argument the writer of the paper tried to use. His argument was "amateurism is simply a corporate veil woven from legal fictions designed to perpetuate the myth that the scholarship system is not a play-for pay-system?". -
"Equitably" is the key word.
All I had to do is read the first sentence.
