Oh, should I go on? In brief, the NCAA is a cartel that exploits young, often poor men (and, to a lesser extent, women) while the members of the oligopoly get obscenely rich. Take Ohio State, center of so much NCAA and media angst because a few evil, evil players were compensated for affixing their signature to merchandise. The Buckeyes' athletic budget tops out at more than $100 million per year and the school routinely brings in nine figures annually in revenue . The athletes themselves get compensated through scholarships (sometimes) but don't receive any other payment for their service. Many of these kids come from extreme poverty and can barely feed themselves, much less help out their families financially. Meanwhile, the school sells player merchandise in stores and online—but God forbid the players attempt to get a little of that revenue stream.
I had an economics teacher in college that liked to wax eloquent about the economic iniquities of college athletics, usually in the same breadth as a financial argument to legalize heroin. If we allowed college athletes to make side money however they could—football signings, endorsement deals, DJing at parties, whatever—college-aged kids could be compensated for their service and athletic departments could get out of the business of making or covering up hush-hush payments to players en masse.
Patrick, you must be on board with ending this charade of amateurism. Am I right?