Not sure when behavior is akin to performance. No one seems to be bidding for a lot of kids. This is pure capitalism, supply and demand isnt it?
Richmond has left the building
- Thread starter General_Tso
- Start date
We could be with the right people in place. We need leaders, not followers and certainly not spectators!
If capitalism has no potential financial reward for those investing I guess so, but that's never been my definition of capitalism. Then again maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to pay you X because you're going to make me 2X or 3X or even 1.5X would be more in line with capitalism in my opinion. I'm going to pay you an insane amount of money knowing full well there is 0 financial return on my money seems like a system designed to fail economically. In capitalism someone takes a financial risk with the hopes of financial gain. I don't see that here.
True NIL where Caleb Williams gets paid by Nissan and Wendy's, yes that's capitalism where those companies are looking to use his NIL in order to profit. This garbage here is not.
I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure what we're witnessing is a true free-market system, (or, if you prefer, a laissez-faire economy), which is a capitalist system. There certainly is no regulation from either the government or any regulating body.
This is the definition I found online.
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
So when you tell me who are the private owners making a profit, then I'll call it capitalism.
I call this system sick and twisted whether it happens by adults at the local little league levels to manipulate a 10 year old team and I see it the same at the college level.
I think in this case, the players are the "private owners" of their own labor/talent. Their salaries are not paid by the teams or the schools (officially), are not subject to Title IX, and are independently bargained for between the player and the entity that pays them.
As some have posted here and elsewhere, I think we are headed legally to a finding that the athletes are employees. I can see a scenario ultimately where if the players are found to be employees, then the colleges will take over NIL. Joe Alum makes a sizable donation of $2 million to his alma mater XYZ University for Johnny Dunk's "salary". XYZ University pays Johnny Dunks $2 million. It impacts XYZ University favorably since they are getting a third party to pay player. Players shop themselves to the highest bidder every year, same as now. Schools can afford to pay outrageous salaries because it's being financed by NIL contributions and will not adversely impact the University's ability to turn a profit, which it is in the business of. [Interesting side note: I believe there are very few colleges, if any, that actually make a profit in athletics - for most, expenses far exceed the income athletics generates. I understand that athletics are kept afloat with increased tuition/donations etc.]
I think you're severely reaching. Don’t know of any system like this but ok. Even when you’re using 20 different subcontractors to build a house there is still a general contractor who stands to make a profit or lose money on the project.
The entity that pays them isn't making money. That's the problem. Me being a nice guy, giving the homeless guy at Penn Station $2 after a game isn't a capitalistic transaction. The homeless guy provides me as much a of financial ROI as any player provides these entities paying them. And if you really want to think about it logically, if their labor/talent could make anyone money, they'd have a league for all of them. The players don't care about the school, and the people paying don't care about the players. The only reason there is money is people are ridiculously loyal to their colleges. But on their own, their labor/talents are borderline worthless for 99% of them getting fake NIL money.
Not at the 7 figure level. Forget brains for a minute, and just pay attention. It seems as though we were hoping to throw a max offer at Kadary to keep him, and couldn't. With that money, however, we just brought in two pretty nice transfers. So I'd say we're competing, and possibly have one of the better coaches in the country to do more with less (though I'd love for us to take some of that load off of him).
You're right that it's not capitalism in the sense of it being an investment to generate value. The "ROI" here is that very rich people want to see their schools team to succeed. If doesn't seem sustainable outside of multi-millionaires/billionaires being willing to continuously throw money around for entertainment value. Probably need to see a few of them get burned by having teams that underperform and then the kids bail on them for the free market part to work itself out and start to lower the value overall and how much money people are throwing around.
I think you're looking at it backwards. The players are the company. Each is an individual entity, selling his talent in a marketplace that is active and fertile for them to make a handsome profit. Those who fund them are the consumers ... except that we, the consumers, do not have direct control over the purchase we make.
So maybe "stockholders" would be a better word, because on our level -- Joe Fan -- we aren't really in control of the purchase. We just contribute money to an account, and the program then acts in a fiduciary relationship with the the collective -- in our case, Onward Setonia -- making decisions how to spend that money we stockholders pour into it.
Like you, I can't think of anything else quite like it, but this is the best way I can compare it. And it definitely sounds like capitalism to me.
LMAO because your dividend is a smile or anger, not a check. Can't wait to go to the shareholders meeting to find out we spent $6 million on a few smiles.
But then what is it now anyhow? What do the big donors get back who aren’t companies that can supposedly write it off?
So…..do we see future ROI based on pro contracts?
Those are possible outcomes, although there is a (theoretical) change of a much higher yield. I mean, winning a national championship is a little better than a smile, right? But no, it's obviously not going to return any money into your pocket. You are essentially gambling on a chance of some type of endorphin hit - it only matters to what extent it comes. Everyone has to decide what that means to them and if it is worth the investment.
Look, I'm not defending the system. I'm not a fan of it. I'm just trying to make sense of it. The players -- on a graduated scale -- obviously have some sort of market value. It's not for their name, image, or likeness in the vast majority of cases, but their talent has value. We know this because people are paying them for it. I just wish the system was not one that leaned most heavily on fans and alumni to fund it.
We don't but the owners do, you know the guys paying their employees like every other business.
Are Mamu and Rhoden pouring money into NIL? We've had a bunch of guys making money overseas, are they sending money in? I don't know, but we're still middle part down of money in the big east.
Last edited:
A national championship still only produces a smile for those who paid for it. Capitalism isn't based on most rainbows, unicorns, and smiles.
But I think you're closer to being right with this being a drug deal looking for an endorphin hit.
Last edited:
