Because, no matter how good a deal you might think a Scholarship is, you can not run an industry where some people make millions while others are artificially capped at non salary benefits.
I
Are you sure about that?
Almost every industry has some people making millions while others (yes, they are called employees) are making peanuts.
The employees's earnings aren't "artificially capped." They get market wages. The only reason that athletes aren't getting paid is because the schools conspired not to pay them. Absent the antitrust conspiracy, schools would have no choice but to pay for top recruits.
Almost every industry has some people making millions while others (yes, they are called employees) are making peanuts.
The employees's earnings aren't "artificially capped." They get market wages. The only reason that athletes aren't getting paid is because the schools conspired not to pay them. Absent the antitrust conspiracy, schools would have no choice but to pay for top recruits.
You do realize that at the beginning of all this the SA's were probably receiving higher than market wages.
There wasn't always all this money involved in college football back then.
Do those players that got that free education back in the day have to return money to the school since they were 'overpaid'.?
Did you also take into consideration that the education & degree they get may have led to careers they might not have had otherwise?
The point being is there are two sides to this coin.
I am not sure it was a conspiracy either but you can run with it.
The employees's earnings aren't "artificially capped." They get market wages. The only reason that athletes aren't getting paid is because the schools conspired not to pay them. Absent the antitrust conspiracy, schools would have no choice but to pay for top recruits.
You do realize that at the beginning of all this the SA's were probably receiving higher than market wages.
There wasn't always all this money involved in college football back then.
Do those players that got that free education back in the day have to return money to the school since they were 'overpaid'.?
Did you also take into consideration that the education & degree they get may have led to careers they might not have had otherwise?
The point being is there are two sides to this coin.
I am not sure it was a conspiracy either but you can run with it.
I am not sure you understand what a conspiracy is in an antitrust context. Schools (which are competing businesses in the labor market for athletic services) have, for the past century, publicly and openly conspired through the rules they create and enforce via the NCAA to suppress compensation for athletic services to non-monetary benefits (COA + various other de minimis benefits). This is textbook antitrust conspiracy and is flat-out per se illegal. Don't just take my word for it, read Kavanaugh's opinion in NCAA v. Alston.
I realize you're probably being facetious but I'll also entertain your point about players being overpaid in the past and therefore should return the money. There is literally zero merit on any grounds to make such an argument and your premise that "back in the day" there wasn't money is misinformed, no matter whether you mean fifty years ago or a hundred, you're wrong either way and I'd encourage you to spend five minutes of research educating yourself. Now, let's pretend you're right and imagine that athletic departments had no money "back in the day." Why would they offer athletic scholarships? No school has ever been required to offer athletic scholarships, they do so entirely voluntarily. And yet they did offer scholarships, so there must have seen some benefit... Market wages are whatever the market sets absent artificial price constraints (floors and ceilings) and there is no artificial floor (minimum wage) for a scholarship (since schools don't have to provide scholarships). Accordingly whatever wage was offered in the form of scholarship "back in the day" was somewhere between zero and market wage, but not possibly more than market wage because it was suppressed by a variety of price ceilings (NCAA rules limiting the value of scholarships, which have evolved only recently to COA+ and were previously lower). It's possible that a track athlete's market wage is actually lower than the ceiling created by NCAA rules but again, why would schools be paying a wage above that when they have no exogenous reason to?
You do realize that at the beginning of all this the SA's were probably receiving higher than market wages.
There wasn't always all this money involved in college football back then.
Do those players that got that free education back in the day have to return money to the school since they were 'overpaid'.?
Did you also take into consideration that the education & degree they get may have led to careers they might not have had otherwise?
The point being is there are two sides to this coin.
I am not sure it was a conspiracy either but you can run with it.
I am not sure you understand what a conspiracy is in an antitrust context. Schools (which are competing businesses in the labor market for athletic services) have, for the past century, publicly and openly conspired through the rules they create and enforce via the NCAA to suppress compensation for athletic services to non-monetary benefits (COA + various other de minimis benefits). This is textbook antitrust conspiracy and is flat-out per se illegal. Don't just take my word for it, read Kavanaugh's opinion in NCAA v. Alston.
I realize you're probably being facetious but I'll also entertain your point about players being overpaid in the past and therefore should return the money. There is literally zero merit on any grounds to make such an argument and your premise that "back in the day" there wasn't money is misinformed, no matter whether you mean fifty years ago or a hundred, you're wrong either way and I'd encourage you to spend five minutes of research educating yourself. Now, let's pretend you're right and imagine that athletic departments had no money "back in the day." Why would they offer athletic scholarships? No school has ever been required to offer athletic scholarships, they do so entirely voluntarily. And yet they did offer scholarships, so there must have seen some benefit... Market wages are whatever the market sets absent artificial price constraints (floors and ceilings) and there is no artificial floor (minimum wage) for a scholarship (since schools don't have to provide scholarships). Accordingly whatever wage was offered in the form of scholarship "back in the day" was somewhere between zero and market wage, but not possibly more than market wage because it was suppressed by a variety of price ceilings (NCAA rules limiting the value of scholarships, which have evolved only recently to COA+ and were previously lower). It's possible that a track athlete's market wage is actually lower than the ceiling created by NCAA rules but again, why would schools be paying a wage above that when they have no exogenous reason to?
Interesting and informative summary. When most schools actually lose money on athletics, even on football, do non revenue athletes actually have a claim when their sport is a net negative to the revenue? Also, what was the genesis of scholarships for non revenue sports? Was it to attract students who wouldn’t otherwise come? You cite the reason for offering scholarships may impute an economic benefit that can be litigated into compensation even if their economic value is low or non existent. BTW, I’m not asking to be confrontational or to challenge your take. Just interested in your input as you seem to understand the legal reasoning more than I do.
You do realize that at the beginning of all this the SA's were probably receiving higher than market wages.
There wasn't always all this money involved in college football back then.
Do those players that got that free education back in the day have to return money to the school since they were 'overpaid'.?
Did you also take into consideration that the education & degree they get may have led to careers they might not have had otherwise?
The point being is there are two sides to this coin.
I am not sure it was a conspiracy either but you can run with it.
I am not sure you understand what a conspiracy is in an antitrust context. Schools (which are competing businesses in the labor market for athletic services) have, for the past century, publicly and openly conspired through the rules they create and enforce via the NCAA to suppress compensation for athletic services to non-monetary benefits (COA + various other de minimis benefits). This is textbook antitrust conspiracy and is flat-out per se illegal. Don't just take my word for it, read Kavanaugh's opinion in NCAA v. Alston.
I realize you're probably being facetious but I'll also entertain your point about players being overpaid in the past and therefore should return the money. There is literally zero merit on any grounds to make such an argument and your premise that "back in the day" there wasn't money is misinformed, no matter whether you mean fifty years ago or a hundred, you're wrong either way and I'd encourage you to spend five minutes of research educating yourself. Now, let's pretend you're right and imagine that athletic departments had no money "back in the day." Why would they offer athletic scholarships? No school has ever been required to offer athletic scholarships, they do so entirely voluntarily. And yet they did offer scholarships, so there must have seen some benefit... Market wages are whatever the market sets absent artificial price constraints (floors and ceilings) and there is no artificial floor (minimum wage) for a scholarship (since schools don't have to provide scholarships). Accordingly whatever wage was offered in the form of scholarship "back in the day" was somewhere between zero and market wage, but not possibly more than market wage because it was suppressed by a variety of price ceilings (NCAA rules limiting the value of scholarships, which have evolved only recently to COA+ and were previously lower). It's possible that a track athlete's market wage is actually lower than the ceiling created by NCAA rules but again, why would schools be paying a wage above that when they have no exogenous reason to?
I could be wrong but I don't think the guy you responded to was trying to make a legal argument, only a general point.
And that is, likely over the years some athletes have been taken advantage of, if of course you believe they were wronged by a university who gave them an education, provided them with the opportunity to play the sport they loved, and also gave them some modicum of support.
However, the overwhelming majority very much got the better end of the deal.
Should student athletes be able to make money? Absolutely.
Should this entire process force a re-tooling of the entire collegiate sports structure? Maybe not. Because the result will likely be a worse situation than what exists now.
The Official Athletic Site of the New Mexico Lobos, partner of WMT Digital. The most comprehensive coverage of the New Mexico Lobos Cross Country on the web with highlights, scores, game summaries, schedule and rosters.
The employees's earnings aren't "artificially capped." They get market wages. The only reason that athletes aren't getting paid is because the schools conspired not to pay them. Absent the antitrust conspiracy, schools would have no choice but to pay for top recruits.
You do realize that at the beginning of all this the SA's were probably receiving higher than market wages.
There wasn't always all this money involved in college football back then.
Do those players that got that free education back in the day have to return money to the school since they were 'overpaid'.?
Did you also take into consideration that the education & degree they get may have led to careers they might not have had otherwise?
The point being is there are two sides to this coin.
I am not sure it was a conspiracy either but you can run with it.
At least back to the 1960's, (probably even earlier with Red Grange, 4 horsemen etc) there was TV money and wagering around football and basketball.
It was less, but a scholarship was less too. My cost of attendance in the 80's was $10000 a year. My grandson will be looking at $100000.
Our legal conspiracy guy is correct, but it still is sad that perhaps 40 schools made money off the backs of football and basketball players, and they ruined a good system for all the other schools.
The vast majority of schools never made money under the old system, and with payments to players now, won't make much in the new system either.
You do realize that at the beginning of all this the SA's were probably receiving higher than market wages.
There wasn't always all this money involved in college football back then.
Do those players that got that free education back in the day have to return money to the school since they were 'overpaid'.?
Did you also take into consideration that the education & degree they get may have led to careers they might not have had otherwise?
The point being is there are two sides to this coin.
I am not sure it was a conspiracy either but you can run with it.
At least back to the 1960's, (probably even earlier with Red Grange, 4 horsemen etc) there was TV money and wagering around football and basketball.
It was less, but a scholarship was less too. My cost of attendance in the 80's was $10000 a year. My grandson will be looking at $100000.
Our legal conspiracy guy is correct, but it still is sad that perhaps 40 schools made money off the backs of football and basketball players, and they ruined a good system for all the other schools.
The vast majority of schools never made money under the old system, and with payments to players now, won't make much in the new system either.
In the early days, perhaps, there was money paid to the school to televise a game but I doubt it.
At that time TV was a new industry with only a few channels and ESPN did not exist. I expect that universities were simply happy to get their games broadcasted because it promoted their brand.
I could be wrong but I'd be willing to bet the universities were not paid in the early days, and everyone, including and especially, the players were just happy to get the exposure.
I am not sure you understand what a conspiracy is in an antitrust context. Schools (which are competing businesses in the labor market for athletic services) have, for the past century, publicly and openly conspired through the rules they create and enforce via the NCAA to suppress compensation for athletic services to non-monetary benefits (COA + various other de minimis benefits). This is textbook antitrust conspiracy and is flat-out per se illegal. Don't just take my word for it, read Kavanaugh's opinion in NCAA v. Alston.
I realize you're probably being facetious but I'll also entertain your point about players being overpaid in the past and therefore should return the money. There is literally zero merit on any grounds to make such an argument and your premise that "back in the day" there wasn't money is misinformed, no matter whether you mean fifty years ago or a hundred, you're wrong either way and I'd encourage you to spend five minutes of research educating yourself. Now, let's pretend you're right and imagine that athletic departments had no money "back in the day." Why would they offer athletic scholarships? No school has ever been required to offer athletic scholarships, they do so entirely voluntarily. And yet they did offer scholarships, so there must have seen some benefit... Market wages are whatever the market sets absent artificial price constraints (floors and ceilings) and there is no artificial floor (minimum wage) for a scholarship (since schools don't have to provide scholarships). Accordingly whatever wage was offered in the form of scholarship "back in the day" was somewhere between zero and market wage, but not possibly more than market wage because it was suppressed by a variety of price ceilings (NCAA rules limiting the value of scholarships, which have evolved only recently to COA+ and were previously lower). It's possible that a track athlete's market wage is actually lower than the ceiling created by NCAA rules but again, why would schools be paying a wage above that when they have no exogenous reason to?
Interesting and informative summary. When most schools actually lose money on athletics, even on football, do non revenue athletes actually have a claim when their sport is a net negative to the revenue? Also, what was the genesis of scholarships for non revenue sports? Was it to attract students who wouldn’t otherwise come? You cite the reason for offering scholarships may impute an economic benefit that can be litigated into compensation even if their economic value is low or non existent. BTW, I’m not asking to be confrontational or to challenge your take. Just interested in your input as you seem to understand the legal reasoning more than I do.
Two great questions. Whether or not a business is in the black has no bearing on their obligations to abide by antitrust and labor law. As far as the specifics of whether non-revenue athletes have a claim, a claim to what? Most of the damages in the House settlement that apply to athletes outside of P5 football and basketball pertain to the NCAA's now-lifted ban on NIL. Prior to 2021, college athletes could not profit off their NIL. Athletes in sports like track suffered measureable harm as a result of this ban, as evidenced by the emergence of a significant market in the three years since the ban was lifted. In NCAA track, the money is concentrated at the top. There are only a handful of athletes with six-figure deals. You probably need to be a multi-time all-american in your event to get a five-figure deal and/or have a significant social media following. And we're seeing the top few high schoolers in a given event sign significant deals here and there as well. Beyond that there is still money, but we're talking mostly small-dollar one-off deals. That's where the market has grown to in just three years and it will continue to evolve. Do athletes prior to 2021 have a claim to damages for these lost NIL opportunities—which were lost solely because of the NCAA's illegal restraints? Absolutely, and that's what they're seeking in House. None of the revenue sharing that schools can opt in to (the ~$22m/school) will go to non-revenue sports if that's what you're referring to as far as claims.
As for the genesis of scholarships for non-revenue sports: I have no idea how they started or what anyone's rationale may have been at the time. Today though I can tell you this: different schools have different reasons. For some mid-major DI schools, take Marist for example, your hypothesis is probably right, offering a track scholarship probably brings in some good students that got into some better schools academically but weren't fast enough to run there and made their college decision in the basis of wanting to be able to run. That probably explains most of non-P5/P4 DI. But you also have mid-majors like NAU who do it to win titles and in turn increase brand recognition and drive applications (broadly, which differentiates from Marist insofar as Marist is trying to admit those dozen kids that want to run, NAU is trying to get thousands of kids to know they exist—kids not running in college—and consider adding it to their application list). How many people would have ever even heard of NAU if not for their cross country team? Very few outside of AZ. Heck, Nico Young is probably their most famous alum. At the P5/P4 level, I think schools' reasons for offering scholarships are more complex. Football and basketball already accomplish their brand recognition goals, a better track team isn't going to add much value in that regard. But they must see value somewhere: does offering track scholarships increase campus diversity? Does it boost alumni relations and thereby help drive donations? Does it help attract faculty somehow? Do schools assign significant (economic) value to winning a conference or NCAA track title? Or maybe is it because to participate in DI FBS football you need to offer at least 210 scholarships and therefore a few track scholarships is just a cost of participating in the much bigger business of FBS football? (that theory quickly becomes circular as the schools themselves set those very rules). The real answer is that I don't know what the indusive mechanism is. It's probably a combination of the above reasons plus a few others. The only thing we know for sure is that schools wouldn't be allocating the ~$1.5m it costs to fully fund scholarships for a track team if they didn't see some value. Or maybe they're truly benevolent and doing it because they love track (ha).
At least back to the 1960's, (probably even earlier with Red Grange, 4 horsemen etc) there was TV money and wagering around football and basketball.
It was less, but a scholarship was less too. My cost of attendance in the 80's was $10000 a year. My grandson will be looking at $100000.
Our legal conspiracy guy is correct, but it still is sad that perhaps 40 schools made money off the backs of football and basketball players, and they ruined a good system for all the other schools.
The vast majority of schools never made money under the old system, and with payments to players now, won't make much in the new system either.
In the early days, perhaps, there was money paid to the school to televise a game but I doubt it.
At that time TV was a new industry with only a few channels and ESPN did not exist. I expect that universities were simply happy to get their games broadcasted because it promoted their brand.
I could be wrong but I'd be willing to bet the universities were not paid in the early days, and everyone, including and especially, the players were just happy to get the exposure.
For the 1908-1909 football season, Yale football recorded a profit of $30,524.92 which, in 2024 dollars, is $1,011,453.47.
In the early days, perhaps, there was money paid to the school to televise a game but I doubt it.
At that time TV was a new industry with only a few channels and ESPN did not exist. I expect that universities were simply happy to get their games broadcasted because it promoted their brand.
I could be wrong but I'd be willing to bet the universities were not paid in the early days, and everyone, including and especially, the players were just happy to get the exposure.
For the 1908-1909 football season, Yale football recorded a profit of $30,524.92 which, in 2024 dollars, is $1,011,453.47.
Good for Yale.
This discussion is about TV money. TV didn't exist back then.
This discussion is about TV money. TV didn't exist back then.
But go ahead with your theory.
Add.. trust me... not all the schools that played football in 1908 made that kind of money.
Was responding to:
"I could be wrong but I'd be willing to bet the universities were not paid in the early days, and everyone, including and especially, the players were just happy to get the exposure."
Forgive my obtuseness for thinking you meant early days of football and not early days of TV.
You're still wrong though, and being willing to bet on things that can be googled in a matter of seconds is generally not a financially sound strategy.
The NCAA actually fought against broadcasting games for decades out of fear that doing so would reduce actual game attendance and shrink ticketing revenue. Though there were exceptions, the NCAA from 1951 to 1984 only allowed one national live broadcast per week. That prohibition, of course, was a violation of antitrust law and in NCAA v. Board of Regents the Supreme Court enjoined that restraint. For the first season after that ruling, TV deals worth ~$30m were signed.
Even before the 1951 ban, when live sports broadcasts were only just emerging, there were a handful of single-school CFB broadcast deals though they were mostly regional not national, but of course still brought in money.
Interesting and informative summary. When most schools actually lose money on athletics, even on football, do non revenue athletes actually have a claim when their sport is a net negative to the revenue? Also, what was the genesis of scholarships for non revenue sports? Was it to attract students who wouldn’t otherwise come? You cite the reason for offering scholarships may impute an economic benefit that can be litigated into compensation even if their economic value is low or non existent. BTW, I’m not asking to be confrontational or to challenge your take. Just interested in your input as you seem to understand the legal reasoning more than I do.
Two great questions. Whether or not a business is in the black has no bearing on their obligations to abide by antitrust and labor law. As far as the specifics of whether non-revenue athletes have a claim, a claim to what? Most of the damages in the House settlement that apply to athletes outside of P5 football and basketball pertain to the NCAA's now-lifted ban on NIL. Prior to 2021, college athletes could not profit off their NIL. Athletes in sports like track suffered measureable harm as a result of this ban, as evidenced by the emergence of a significant market in the three years since the ban was lifted. In NCAA track, the money is concentrated at the top. There are only a handful of athletes with six-figure deals. You probably need to be a multi-time all-american in your event to get a five-figure deal and/or have a significant social media following. And we're seeing the top few high schoolers in a given event sign significant deals here and there as well. Beyond that there is still money, but we're talking mostly small-dollar one-off deals. That's where the market has grown to in just three years and it will continue to evolve. Do athletes prior to 2021 have a claim to damages for these lost NIL opportunities—which were lost solely because of the NCAA's illegal restraints? Absolutely, and that's what they're seeking in House. None of the revenue sharing that schools can opt in to (the ~$22m/school) will go to non-revenue sports if that's what you're referring to as far as claims.
As for the genesis of scholarships for non-revenue sports: I have no idea how they started or what anyone's rationale may have been at the time. Today though I can tell you this: different schools have different reasons. For some mid-major DI schools, take Marist for example, your hypothesis is probably right, offering a track scholarship probably brings in some good students that got into some better schools academically but weren't fast enough to run there and made their college decision in the basis of wanting to be able to run. That probably explains most of non-P5/P4 DI. But you also have mid-majors like NAU who do it to win titles and in turn increase brand recognition and drive applications (broadly, which differentiates from Marist insofar as Marist is trying to admit those dozen kids that want to run, NAU is trying to get thousands of kids to know they exist—kids not running in college—and consider adding it to their application list). How many people would have ever even heard of NAU if not for their cross country team? Very few outside of AZ. Heck, Nico Young is probably their most famous alum. At the P5/P4 level, I think schools' reasons for offering scholarships are more complex. Football and basketball already accomplish their brand recognition goals, a better track team isn't going to add much value in that regard. But they must see value somewhere: does offering track scholarships increase campus diversity? Does it boost alumni relations and thereby help drive donations? Does it help attract faculty somehow? Do schools assign significant (economic) value to winning a conference or NCAA track title? Or maybe is it because to participate in DI FBS football you need to offer at least 210 scholarships and therefore a few track scholarships is just a cost of participating in the much bigger business of FBS football? (that theory quickly becomes circular as the schools themselves set those very rules). The real answer is that I don't know what the indusive mechanism is. It's probably a combination of the above reasons plus a few others. The only thing we know for sure is that schools wouldn't be allocating the ~$1.5m it costs to fully fund scholarships for a track team if they didn't see some value. Or maybe they're truly benevolent and doing it because they love track (ha).
Add.. trust me... not all the schools that played football in 1908 made that kind of money.
Was responding to:
"I could be wrong but I'd be willing to bet the universities were not paid in the early days, and everyone, including and especially, the players were just happy to get the exposure."
Forgive my obtuseness for thinking you meant early days of football and not early days of TV.
You're still wrong though, and being willing to bet on things that can be googled in a matter of seconds is generally not a financially sound strategy.
The NCAA actually fought against broadcasting games for decades out of fear that doing so would reduce actual game attendance and shrink ticketing revenue. Though there were exceptions, the NCAA from 1951 to 1984 only allowed one national live broadcast per week. That prohibition, of course, was a violation of antitrust law and in NCAA v. Board of Regents the Supreme Court enjoined that restraint. For the first season after that ruling, TV deals worth ~$30m were signed.
Even before the 1951 ban, when live sports broadcasts were only just emerging, there were a handful of single-school CFB broadcast deals though they were mostly regional not national, but of course still brought in money.
So you are saying that the very first college football broadcast they paid whomever 30mil.?
before they knew they'd have an audience?
if so, then i stand corrected.
still doesn't change the fact that the players were more than happy to have their game on tv and would not have thought they deserved money for it. sort of like how fans go nuts when they are sitting in the stands and the camera shows them on tv for 5 seconds...or everyone posts their entire lives on IG .... everyone just wants to be famous
in the beginning there was no thought (by anyone) that the players were being taken advantage of or deserved to be paid more than with a free education.
(sorry but google won't be able to help you establish that opinion is incorrect)
still doesn't change the fact that the players were more than happy to have their game on tv and would not have thought they deserved money for it. sort of like how fans go nuts when they are sitting in the stands and the camera shows them on tv for 5 seconds...or everyone posts their entire lives on IG .... everyone just wants to be famous
in the beginning there was no thought (by anyone) that the players were being taken advantage of or deserved to be paid more than with a free education.
(sorry but google won't be able to help you establish that opinion is incorrect)
How do you know what players thought? And even if you're right, why does it matter? They were still victimized by a criminal conspiracy. It isn't a defense to criminal liability to say that your victim didn't realize what you were doing to them.
The entire point of the antitrust laws is that we don't allow cartels to get together and decide what's a "fair price" or what labor "deserves." We let the market do that. The only reason to get together with competitors and create these kinds of rules is to pay less than market rates.
still doesn't change the fact that the players were more than happy to have their game on tv and would not have thought they deserved money for it. sort of like how fans go nuts when they are sitting in the stands and the camera shows them on tv for 5 seconds...or everyone posts their entire lives on IG .... everyone just wants to be famous
in the beginning there was no thought (by anyone) that the players were being taken advantage of or deserved to be paid more than with a free education.
(sorry but google won't be able to help you establish that opinion is incorrect)
How do you know what players thought? And even if you're right, why does it matter? They were still victimized by a criminal conspiracy. It isn't a defense to criminal liability to say that your victim didn't realize what you were doing to them.
The entire point of the antitrust laws is that we don't allow cartels to get together and decide what's a "fair price" or what labor "deserves." We let the market do that. The only reason to get together with competitors and create these kinds of rules is to pay less than market rates.
lolz.
the poster is right and it does matter.
the point, entirely missed by you is that, back then, they were not victimized... they were in fact being paid a fair price, and very likely they were being paid more than a fair price (since they would have done it for nothing... just like 99% of all mid-distance & distance runners do today)
trying to put today's standards on something that happened a 100 of years ago makes little sense in this case. things change.
How do you know what players thought? And even if you're right, why does it matter? They were still victimized by a criminal conspiracy. It isn't a defense to criminal liability to say that your victim didn't realize what you were doing to them.
The entire point of the antitrust laws is that we don't allow cartels to get together and decide what's a "fair price" or what labor "deserves." We let the market do that. The only reason to get together with competitors and create these kinds of rules is to pay less than market rates.
lolz.
the poster is right and it does matter.
the point, entirely missed by you is that, back then, they were not victimized... they were in fact being paid a fair price, and very likely they were being paid more than a fair price (since they would have done it for nothing... just like 99% of all mid-distance & distance runners do today)
trying to put today's standards on something that happened a 100 of years ago makes little sense in this case. things change.
Sounds like you may not understand some of fundamental economics at play here but maybe you can convince me otherwise. What is your rationale for claiming that football players back then were being paid a fair price? Help me understand why you think that.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
