It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
We're discussing a law. A law that unfairly allows one state to override the restrictions that everyone else in the association agreed to.
The government of one state controls whether endorsements can be had.
I have no problem with accepting endorsements as long as the athletes are insulated from the monetary traps associated with them and pay back some to the association they are using to profit.
I have a problem with the government deciding policy, especially a state government.
The problem is that it came out of California.
No one state gets to invalidate voluntarily contracts at the national level for their state.
Strange you seem happy to see an American institution torn down because you don't like it. What else don't you like that you think no one else should enjoy?
originally posted by: TheRedneck
Where is the law that says one cannot be an athlete without belonging to the NCAA?
Just don't participate in NCAA events and don't take advantage of an NCAA school sports program, and you can take any endorsement you want.
Learn to read.
Exactly my point. They are using NCAA venues to become attractive to endorsers.
Not just their talents, no. And those talents don't mean much without a good coach, either, nor do they get the same kind of attention without being part of a team. You just admitted to that above.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
Capitalism by force of law. How oxymoronic.
I'm done.
When you argue from an emotional standpoint that's often what happens, you exhaust yourself.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
Actually, my problem was arguing from a logical standpoint. Seems to have gone right over your head.
That's OK, though... next time I'll know better.
TheRedneck
Yeah, I saw your logic
originally posted by: TheRedneck
I stated that it was improper for a state government to invalidate a contract voluntarily executed by entities on a national level and thereby give those entities in their state an unfair advantage.
That's got nothing to do with a free market; a free market allows execution of contracts freely.
I don't think you know what a "free market" is.
Of course, it had to be California... the same California that arrested a homeowner for protecting their property from a wildfire... the same California that has caused wildfires through mismanagement of resources... the same California that thinks it has the right to determine Federal election requirements... the same California that tried to outlaw CB radios for OTR (national) truck drivers... the same California that decided they were able to violate Federal immigration laws... yeah, that California.
< br />
NCAA board approves athlete compensation for image, likeness. Source