E, all merc’d out: But the vast, vast majority of runners are perfectly content to run for free (*), thus entirely supporting the concept of amateurism against all its ill-informed critics

Athletes at top NCAA programs are not the vast majority of athletes. You’ve asserted that a distinction exists, but failed to provide any guidance on what creates the distinction or makes it relevant to this case. You’ve also failed to give any reason why we should classify student-athletes as amateurs rather than professionals.

World class athletes playing for Duke, Kentucky, or other top flight programs certainly have more in common with world class marathon runners than the “vast majority of runners” have in common with the top runners. Athletes in these programs, much like the top runners, will not show up if they don’t receive compensation in some form. Right now the NCAA restricts this compensation to education-related expenses.

The issue, one you seem happy to dodge, is the NCAA has formed a cartel that limits the compensation available to its athletes. If marathon organizers joined together and refused to pay runners money, then antitrust laws would kick in and dismantle the unfair restraints on free trade. The core issue is that the NCAA wields monopsony power to depress wages, or remove them altogether, from deserving athletes. The desire of students to play basketball is not relevant.

The NCAA should not alone be exempt from antitrust laws.

Sorry but I’m not sad we’re not paying that dude $36M to perpetually rehab whatever knee happens to be fucked up that day

Top runners do get paid for running marathons. Nice try though.

But the vast, vast majority of runners are perfectly content to run for free (*), thus entirely supporting the concept of amateurism against all its ill-informed critics — including, kind of comically, many of the amateur contributors to Knickerblogger who themselves don’t make a dime for their writings and yet still write on Knickerblogger. Go figure.

(*) Actually, they don’t even run for free. There’s a big entry fee, so thousands of people run and train for a marathon for like negative two thousand dollars. And there’s also a lottery to even get in and the ones who miss the lottery are typically bummed, notwithstanding their liberation from both the “work” and the entry fee.
(Again raises hand.) Nike has built an empire on the desire of amateur athletes to train and compete for the love of the sport. In sort of typical fashion, a small faction of people are projecting their impression of “exploitation” on the “exploited” people (thus depriving them of their agency) who feel exactly the opposite of exploited.

E, all merc’d out: Willing and ecstatic participants render it no only ethical, but commendable. Running the NYC marathon for free is a noble, commendable activity looked at both objectively and subjectively by the vast majority of the participants.

You don’t get paid for running marathons, much like you don’t get paid for playing basketball, because you just aren’t that good at it.

Top runners do get paid for running marathons. Nice try though.

Good stuff! 😉 So, dream on…
Yeah, sing with me, sing for the year
Sing for the laughter, and sing for the tear
Sing it with me, if it’s just for today…

honestly – i think the song Big Ten Inch Record alone counted for probably 90% of sales…i remember as kids how we all laughed at and loved that song…

yeah, back to just geo, fun to be someone else for awhile…but, also fun to get back to the normal role i play here on our site: goofy as fuck, with lazy syntax…

thenoblefacehumper: Willing participants don’t render a system ethical, unless you think society should be structured such that all jobs are done for the absolute least amount of compensation someone is willing to accept.

Willing and ecstatic participants render it no only ethical, but commendable. Running the NYC marathon for free is a noble, commendable activity looked at both objectively and subjectively by the vast majority of the participants.

You could marshal this argument in support of a $2 minimum wage or any other number of awful practices.

You couldn’t because no one’s happy to work for $2/hour and you can’t support yourself above the poverty line at $2/hour. But playing amateur sports isn’t done for economic reasons and economic returns. Even if you gave a high school basketball player a stipend, that wouldn’t be his/her motivation to play.

I have no clue what you’re getting at here. What is being used to pay Nick Saban $9M a season?

The same thing that’s used to pay the salaries of the CEOs of the Red Cross and the NY Stock Exchange and the Ford Foundation and other nonprofits — the money the non-profit takes in (net of expenses, of course). The revenue teams really should be thought of as “The Duke University Mens’ and Womens’ Non-Revenue Sports Foundation,” as they essentially are and then the idea might be easier to understand.

They line up to do the “work” knowing that the wage is zero. And then they do the “work” for that wage. There’s no hint of duress, force, intimidation, etc. — the opposite, really. Walk-ons who make these teams are ecstatic notwithstanding the “work” they now owe. Walk ons who try to make the team and then get cut are often despondent, notwithstanding their liberation from the potential “work.” (Raises hand.)

You could marshal this argument in support of a $2 minimum wage or any other number of awful practices. Willing participants don’t render a system ethical, unless you think society should be structured such that all jobs are done for the absolute least amount of compensation someone is willing to accept.

And the “work” doesn’t actually generate “profit.” These are non-profit entities. They generate “money” as do all manner of non-profits. “Money” is not “profit.” The fact that money is involved in these enterprises doesn’t turn them into steel mills. Again, we have agreement that they’ve been overly monetized and that the people in charge appropriate too much of the money for themselves. But…

I have no clue what you’re getting at here. What is being used to pay Nick Saban $9M a season?

They line up to do the “work” knowing that the wage is zero. And then they do the “work” for that wage. There’s no hint of duress, force, intimidation, etc. — the opposite, really.

Charles Koch himself, ladies and gentlemen!

And the “work” doesn’t actually generate “profit.” These are non-profit entities. They generate “money” as do all manner of non-profits.

It is Charles Fucking Koch, you guys!