Post Reply to Rock's House

This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

Message:

HTTP Link (optional):

Poster's Email (optional):

 


Post being replied to

Two big differences by Kayo

The first one is that NIL rights never should have belonged to anyone other than the athletes. I can't think of either a legal basis or an ethical basis for it to be any other way.

On the other hand, eligibility for the NFL is a collective bargaining issue. Agree or disagree with the righteousness of the three year rule, the NFL owners and players have a right to put an eligibility in the CBA. Maurice Clarett filed an anti-trust challenge in federal court and won, but the decision was reversed on appeal by a three judge panel that included a young judge named Sonia Sotomayor. The appeals court held that the rule was a collective bargaining matter.

(Side note: Sotomayor is the judge who found the baseball owners in violation of labor lar and ordered baseball to reopen after its last work stoppage.)

The second difference is the practical matter of readiness. The NFL is more physically demanding than any other major team sport. Very few true college juniors are physically ready for the NFL, let alone sophomores and freshmen; so realistically, the ones who want to go get paid can't get a job in the NFL.

If football had a legitimate minor league, players might have a choice before they spend three years in college; but a football minor league has yet to be financially viable.