News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:CA Governor Signs Bill Allowing College Athletes to Profi... by kodablah on Monday September 30, 2019 @03:22PM (#21118783)
Is there a meaningful difference between a school paying players with booster-provided money and a company doing so?

EDIT: To clarify, I mean a "practical" difference whether a booster gives money to a school to pay players or gives it to a company to do so. The payer matters to law, not to the paid nor to the practical result.

Re:CA Governor Signs Bill Allowing College Athletes to Profi... by slg on Monday September 30, 2019 @03:36PM (#21118922)
You will have Title IX problems as soon as the school is directly involved paying players. No school receiving federal funds can provide a benefit to its male football players that it doesn't also provide its female field hockey players.

Personally, I also feel that boosters have too much direct involvement in athletic departments as is. Removing the school from the booster-player relationship and bringing booster payment to players out from under the table could potentially help clean up some of the corruption in college sports.

Re:CA Governor Signs Bill Allowing College Athletes to Profi... by aripickar on Monday September 30, 2019 @03:35PM (#21118915)
In terms of title IX repercussions, there very much is.
Re:CA Governor Signs Bill Allowing College Athletes to Profi... by kodablah on Monday September 30, 2019 @03:39PM (#21118945)
I was a bit too succinct and therefore unclear. To rephrase, is there any meaningful difference between a booster paying players via the university or a booster taking their money to pay a player and doing it via a company instead? I understand the legal ramifications of who the payer is seen as, I am talking about the practical ramifications and whether a school having a player that is paid by a company rooting for the school (and with monies from same pockets) is meaningfully different. I'd say not.
Re:CA Governor Signs Bill Allowing College Athletes to Profi... by aripickar on Tuesday October 01, 2019 @10:35AM (#21125743)
The practical difference is that title IX means that universities have to provide equal opportunity for male and female students. If a donor wants the university to pay male athletes $1 from his pocket per athlete, he would have to donate $2 per athlete, since there needs to be equal opportunity for males and females. Currently that manifested itself in equal scholarships, but if the law changes, I would assume it would end up mandating equal $$
Re:CA Governor Signs Bill Allowing College Athletes to Profi... by shiloa on Monday September 30, 2019 @03:37PM (#21118929)
Of course - think about schools with deep pockets compared to those without much; top talent will flock to these, leaving smaller/less wealthy schools. Today athletes weigh a lot of factors when choosing where to attend - academics, athletic program, campus life, etc. If this becomes the norm I suspect we'll see clusters of high talent in "rich" schools. I don't think that will be good for the long run.
Re:CA Governor Signs Bill Allowing College Athletes to Profi... by wkrp on Monday September 30, 2019 @03:41PM (#21118976)
Re:CA Governor Signs Bill Allowing College Athletes to Profi... by jsgo on Monday September 30, 2019 @03:35PM (#21118913)
One is an employee, the other is basically an influencer?