Comments (493)
sorted by:
CrusadingPowerUser 480 points ago +482 / -2

HAHA these same commie cock sucker institutions that think they run everything need to pay their slaves

I feel so bad for them

ProphetOfKek 192 points ago +195 / -3

They get paid in exposure!!!!

CrusadingPowerUser 164 points ago +168 / -4

iTs A PrIvAte CompAnY

MICHIGANisRED 144 points ago +144 / -0

They actually make that argument even though they're partially tax payer funded.

IncredibleMrE1 74 points ago +74 / -0

Yeah they really did. Clowns lmao

BoatingAccident 34 points ago +34 / -0

My kid's not great at sports, but now that they have to pay athletes maybe he can get in on the cheap labor market!

Chuj 24 points ago +24 / -0

Recruit: "I'll play QB for $20 a game"

College AD: "you are hired!"

zippy2 2 points ago +2 / -0


FreddyThePatriot 2 points ago +3 / -1

So are the tech giants.

unspecified_user 17 points ago +17 / -0

The same way you pay graphic designers, artists, gig bands, and app developers!

Imransgarage 110 points ago +111 / -1


The only response to this is - Fuck Colleges.

Whoopies_tds 45 points ago +45 / -0

Sounds like it's time for reparations

Ben45 32 points ago +32 / -0

yea, and the white students attending these colleges are the ones who will be paying it

unless you have a clear career path, do not go to college

even then, go to community college first for two years then transfer to a cheap state school

Ptannerdactyl 14 points ago +14 / -0

I got a degree in economics and a masters in data analytics and I’ve already managed to pay off the loans just a few short years later. It’s doable for sure if you have a plan even with a non state school and some merit scholarships.

Ben45 8 points ago +8 / -0

yea choosing the right major is very important (which is why I said having a plan is important - find a degree that will get you into a growing field with lots of job opportunities)

most tech related degrees, you don't have to worry about debt because you'll be able to find a good paying job. Same with most science and math related careers, like engineering. Law is also an option, for which no specific undergrad degree is required, just find a good school and a good department to be a part of.

You can probably find the right career path during college too, just be wary of marxist ideology. Those of us here are awake to it so we know better than to fall for their lies. You may have to be concerned about censorship or even being kicked out, but go to a decent college, preferably a religious one, and you likely won't have to worry too much about being an outspoken conservative. I didn't, for the most part. College does have it's benefits and value, no matter what people will say here. I certainly would be stupider, and likely not even on this site, if it wasn't for my college education.

pallman 2 points ago +2 / -0

It sucks because there is value in a liberal arts education. It would be nice after high school to send the kids to something like Hillsdale college for an accelerated year. Then do community college for the rest of undergrad requirements. Then transfer for the final 2 years at a big state u for a STEM. Somebody should package the whole thing to stream line the process.

Cut all the Marxist bullshit. Learn the classics and normal history. Still graduate with a worthwhile degree, still be mostly debt free and have money for post grad education.

Win win.

Ben45 3 points ago +3 / -0

Hillsdale has free online courses


2016TrumpMAGA 10 points ago +12 / -2

You don't go to a prestigious college for an education. You go there for the contacts you will make.

KarenKarenKaren 2 points ago +2 / -0

Works 100% of the time 2% of the time

IdahoMan87 0 points ago +1 / -1

Trade school. Become a lineman, crane operator, etc, and retire before before you turn 50.

fuckfortysix 38 points ago +43 / -5

Yep, my wife 4.0'd through grad school. I just graduated MAGA COOM LAUDE. Our kids are going to eviscerate the world, woods, and life. I was an infantryman in my prior life, so they will know how to shoot, move, and communicate as a kicker. Colleges can POUND FUCKING SAND! They will work for us, at our companies, and we will build them whatever they want with the costs of college in 10 years. Lord knows its probably going to be 250k for a BA by then and the teachers will be men who breastfeed in class, half naked, with nice red nose! HONK HONK!

bubadmt 18 points ago +18 / -0


fuckfortysix 13 points ago +13 / -0



bubadmt 13 points ago +13 / -0

C'mon man!

BeefyBelisarius 9 points ago +9 / -0

Listen, fat!

BidensPrisonWallet 7 points ago +7 / -0

Lookin all 19 years old.

JohnCocktoastin 7 points ago +7 / -0

that's a bunch of malarkey, ask my hairy legs that turn blonde in the sun

fuckfortysix 4 points ago +4 / -0

LOL what have I done!

MagaShoghi 4 points ago +4 / -0

Stacking wood is the best therapist I know

mechdork 4 points ago +4 / -0

ahh period. something most "female" college professors can't have...

Liberty4All 12 points ago +12 / -0

It's already 250k for a BA at a lot of private schools. A lot of state schools are moving out of reach of the middle class (unless the kid/parenst take out student loans), too.

fuckfortysix 9 points ago +9 / -0

Holy fuck man, that's insane I paid like $32k when its all said and done for mine. I can't even imagine paying a quarter million dollars for a piece of paper. That's so far outside of what they should charge. Do the kids drive around campus in their own supercars and talk almost exclusively through their phones/platforms? Nuts

TrumpTrain425 9 points ago +9 / -0

The chinese ones do in washington. The parents buy their kid a mclaren or ferrari to drive around while they go to bellevur community college.

fuckfortysix 1 point ago +3 / -2

I guess if you have that sort of cash to flaunt, go ahead. Setting the kids up for failure, or putting them on a path of pure greed imo. When they are like 30-40 sure, they have earned it, but in their young adult life they need to worry about finding a non-gold digging wife/husband and their academics/education. Money has very little to do with that. Driving around a Lambo and snapchatting your new shoes seems like a waste of time to me.

This dude I know who was a longtime manager for UPS (got canned for fucking his secretaries!) bought his kid a new Mercedes C63 and the kid went into some old ladies garden back yard with it. Totaled. So he bought him a Roush Mustang and he fucking bottomed it out and totaled it. He had to have jumped something with it. That was enough for me to make my mind up on that shit. He's a VERY fat slob with a brain made of silly putty now. I don't have social media anymore or I'd make a meme out of his fucking face.

TrumpTrain425 6 points ago +6 / -0

It's for appearances absolutely but it's also a way to have assets in the US. Kid(spy) goes to school, drives a 200k car, lives in a million dollar condo filled with art(bribes) and has a 100k wardrobe.

I know a few kids like that. The funny thing is that once you know true wealth...those people stick out like a kitschy sore thumb. It's just so cringe inducing. I'm the wealthiest in my family/friends by a long ways and they wouldn't believe me if I showed them statements. I drive a 21 year old car and have worn the same clothes for damn near a decade. Most billionaires I've met have been the same. Unassuming, dressed down and drive toyota camrys or something when they want to avoid attention. funny stuff.

Liberty4All 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well, when the school charges $40,000-$50,000 per year just for tuition and fees and then you have to add living expenses on top of that, it gets pretty pricey.

My understanding is that what people really pay for with "Ivy League" schools is not the classes, but the networking. Graduating from the Ivy League gets you a shot at getting into "the club" and getting to know powerful, influential people who can get you set up with the best opportunities after graduating.

Frankly, I don't see the point of attending an expensive private school unless it gives you contacts with the rich and powerful. The actual education at a top tier state university is just as good as most private schools and costs a fraction as much.

fuckfortysix 2 points ago +2 / -0

My degree was like 80k all said and done, I had 32k out of pocket. Will I ever be some Ivy Leaguer, no, do I want that life, no. I enjoyed most of it, learning about different facets of our culture and business but I'm also not in massive debt or sucking my parents off for a shot to get into 'the club'. There's a massive divide in thinking between classes in the states, and it's not getting any closer with 250k degrees.

Gmama2 6 points ago +6 / -0

I'm a little sick of this refrain. In-state tuition is pretty inexpensive, and most states have a community or junior college to state school program. One of my kids went to a junior college ($11K/yr including room and board in the nicest dorm), then finished up at the state university. He worked about 15 hrs/week during the school year, and all summer, and ended up with about $20K/debt, which is manageable. Another is in school now at a state school, has a scholarship, and works 30 hrs a week and has zero debt so far. He wants to do it on his own, and we slip him $100 here and there as a gift, but he pays for everything and is maintaining a B+, which is great in a STEM program. If I were an employer I would take the kid who worked his way through with a B+ over the kid whose parents paid or took out loans.

FreddyThePatriot 6 points ago +7 / -1

I went to a state school and retired in my 30's a millionaire.

Getting an expensive prestigious degree means you were pretty stupid

Gmama2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yup, I know multiple millionaire and billionaires with state degrees or who went into the military then college. I also know a couple of Ivy leaguers who still need help from mommy and daddy in their 50s.

Retardloserimsogay 1 point ago +1 / -0

I want your formula!

Armatron 2 points ago +3 / -1

I went to a public city school and got a BA and Masters, I was out of debt in my first year out of school. Looking back, I could have gone without the small loan altogether, but I did go on a 3 week trip to Europe while in school that I do not regret. I rarely had a day off while in school - I was either working or at school or both. I went to school year-round (summer semesters too) so I could balance school and work.

Liberty4All 2 points ago +2 / -0

How inexpensive state universities are is varies widely depending on the state you're in. Where I live, in-state tuition and fees at the state universities is about $6,800 per year. But in California, in-state tuition and fees for undergrads are estimated at $14,100. Ouch!

And most state universities' prices are going up much faster than inflation, so they are becoming increasingly expensive relative to a middle-class family income.

Dorms at state schools are also increasingly expensive, partly because colleges keep building newer, nicer facilities to try to attract students. The "two people in a 12'x12' room with a bathroom and kitchen shared by all 50 people on the floor" arrangement when I went to school is being phased out for apartment-like dorms with partial or full kitchens, semi-private or even private bedrooms and bathrooms, and lots of amenities. Naturally these cost more than standard dorms.

So, even in my state, total cost of attendance for a student not living at home is $21-$22k per year, so $84-$88k for a four year program. But then consider that less than half of students who graduate finish in 4 years - many take 5 or even 6 years! Spreading out the classes reduces the tuition, but the living costs are just as high, so if a student in my state takes 5 or more years, a state university education can cost well over $100k. (And in California, the total cost of attendance is ~$36,000, so it would cost a whole lot more there,)

Private schools' total cost of attendance is much higher on average - many have a total cost of attendance of over $50,000 per year, and some of the more expensive schools cost $70,000 per year. Most of the difference in cost between private and state schools' cost of attendance is tuition and fees. The good news is that students at expensive private schools are more likely to graduate in 4 years.

Of course, the more expensive the school is, the more likely that a middle class family will qualify for some financial aid. But the annual family contribution expected in those financial aid calculations can still be pretty steep. Even with the student working part time and summer jobs, there can still be tens of thousands in costs to pay.

So, many students still have to take out loans.

But you're right - there are still cheap schools. One of my sons goes to the state college (it used to be called a community college). It has the cheapest tuition in the whole state, costing only about $2,400 per year for full-time tuition and fees for the first two years, and a little more for years 3 and 4. And those who are close enough to a college that they can keep living with their parents can save thousands more. So, there are still cheap college options out there.

Also in my state, there are reduced or free tuition scholarships - called "Bright Futures Scholarships" that are available for all in-state academic high achievers who attend college in-state. But I don't know how many states have similar programs.

Gmama2 2 points ago +2 / -0

I understand the competition to have the nicest dorms food courts and workout facilities, all pushed by government loan money.

In my state college is near free if you don't have money.

Even if a kid goes to state school for $80K total they can work summers and 20 or so hours during the school year to offset about 10K/yr; or $40K. Leaving with 40K debt isn't huge or insurrmountable. Anyone who choses to go to some liberal arts college in New England for 80K/yr to get a useless degree gets zero sympathy from me.

zerk0021 1 point ago +1 / -0

"In-state tuition is pretty inexpensive,"

Not exactly in all states....


If a student is considered dependent under fafsa and virtually all unmarried undergraduate students under 24 are considered dependents under fafsa, then the parent's income determines federal financial aid available, whether the parent is willing to pay a cent for the student's education or contributes anything towards the student's lifestyle, and even if the potential student is working, fully providing for himself and not claimed a dependent of the parent on the parent's tax forms.

Private universities then offer private financial aid based on their own income guidelines which vary by institution. At the wealthiest, those with the largest endowments, financial aid includes full or partial tuition grants that can be offered to students with parents' income up to around $250,000/yr. The amount varies with the income level and other attributes-diversity, athlete, other talent etc.

State's also have their own aid programs. For instance California has Cal Grant for state residents. Any student who qualifies for Cal Grant A pays no UC tution and the overwhelming majority of students admitted as a freshman to any UC campus academically qualifies for Cal Grant A; however there is also an income and asset component to Cal Grant A which is parental income of less than $110,000(family of 4) for an undergraduate student classified as a dependent under fafsa. But the asset ceiling of $85,500 can disqualify students whose family income is in the higher end of the range.


Student's who qualify for Cal Grant A are then offered "University Grants" by the individual UC campuses that fully or partially pay for room and board. University Grants are funded by out of state/international tuition that is in excess of state resident tuition. And by 1/3 of state resident tuition. Including state resident tuition paid by Cal Grant A, which is by the way contrary to California law because Cal Grant A is only to be used to pay for education expenses not living expenses. University Grants are most generous at Berkeley, the UC with the largest endowment.

In essence, for dependent undergraduate students who qualify for Cal Grant A, a UC tuition is free of cost or very low cost. For dependent students who do not qualify for Cal Grant A, a UC education has become out of reach given the high costs of living in most areas of California. And this is reflected in UC attendance, whereby a small percent of students are from families whose children do not financially qualify for Cal Grant A and are making less than $180,000/yr.

Before California became a one party state, higher education dollars were allocated in a way that did not exclude students of middle income families. California used to, in essence, offer tuition grants to all students regardless of dependent status as determined by fafsa or parental income. And note, in actual dollars at the time, the 1979-1980 UC tuition cited at the link below was around $750/yr and had been at that level since it had been raised from $200/yr in 1970 while Reagan was Governor. It wasn't even called tuition at the time but an education fee and Cal Grant A was available to pay it for qualifying students.


At the time, 1979-80, room and board was also far more reasonable, in 1979-80 dollars, around $2000/yr. Currently, room and board at UC is among the most expensive in the nation, ranging from roughly $15,000 to $23,000/yr...


Under California's Master Plan For Higher Education circa 1960, the general idea was that any state resident student had their tuition subsidized by the state regardless of parent's income but the state did not pay for the student's living expenses. The expectation was that lower income students who could not afford to live on campus could attend whatever UC or CSU campus was near their home, so a higher education was available to almost all state residents.

As California became a one party state, the concern shifted to assuring that any student who qualifies for Cal Grant A can attend any UC or CSU campus in the state that he gains admission. And that students from families who do not qualify for Cal Grant A must pay in state tuition that is not only no longer subsidized by the state but that is 50% higher than it otherwise would be to help pay for the living expenses of those students who qualify for Cal Grant A.

There has been a shift of state higher education dollars from subsidizing tuition for all state resident students to subsidizing it for only Cal Grant A students and also paying the living expenses of Cal Grant A students.

Gmama2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ummm California really isn't "America" America.

sometimescanbefunny 9 points ago +9 / -0

I went to an Ivy League that has a sticker price upwards of that price. I let them pay for virtually all of it. Then, like your wife, I went and got an MBA with a 4.0 GPA. Let them pay for most of that, too. Now I put my time and effort into conservative things. Take that, commies.

fuckfortysix 6 points ago +6 / -0

Ok we can frens forever, you're my kind of American. It takes a lot of resolve to carve your own path like that, knowing you had to duck influences from above/around you the whole time. RESPECT PEDE RESPECT

Cc1005 4 points ago +4 / -0

Sounds like an awesome fam. Can I send you MY kids?!??

fuckfortysix 2 points ago +2 / -0


Gwot0412 2 points ago +2 / -0

Congrats man! With all the veteran suicides and homelessness, it's nice to hear a post military success story. And without $1500 a month in child support, two divorces, and an alcohol problem. Or maybe your body had been so conditioned to the alcohol that you sailed right through college.

fuckfortysix 2 points ago +2 / -0

Married 12 years, have multiple kids, loving life. Thanks for the kind words, those aren't as common as they used to be around here.

Balzenburg 14 points ago +14 / -0

They get muh physical education degrees they never use....

BlitheringIdiot 22 points ago +23 / -1

Or Communications "degrees". My degree happens to be in physics, but there weren't too many of us at my school, so I was the only graduate in May 1999. They sat me with the EE grads, and as we were watching a bunch of Humanities (of some kind) graduates cross the stage, the guy next to me mutters, "That's not a real degree." LOLOLOLOL.

deleted 17 points ago +17 / -0
BoatingAccident 5 points ago +5 / -0

better degrees to pick on than communications.

communication degrees are not all bullshit

it's a real discipline. not like gender studies or some bullshit.

WhiteTrashJesus 4 points ago +4 / -0

Some people can do a lot with a communications degree some people can do the same without even getting the degree and a lot of people take it because it is well known as the easiest major at most schools

BoatingAccident 2 points ago +2 / -0

true, but you can get an actual job with it. i learned it all on the fly at my job (i studied science in college) .

if i had more formal training in college instead of science classes that I don't use (who the hell wants to be a civil engineer anyways omg just stab me in the face now please) it would have helped me from having to learn so much on the fly. so to speak.

WhiteTrashJesus 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes you can but you have to apply yourself in that field or use it to get a job that arbitrarily requires a degree like being a cop or something

OffendingSomeone 1 point ago +1 / -0

communication degrees are not all bullshit

I started off in Communications in 97, and changed my major to CIS with a minor in Comm. The pairing of the two was spectacular given how the web has progressed.

Truthdose 1 point ago +1 / -0

They sat me with the EE grads...

that sounds sad...

phandaal 1 point ago +2 / -1

Physics degree here. There were 8 of us in my graduating class at fairly large university. We didn't have size limits or anything... our classrooms were always less than half full. Good times!

unspecified_user 4 points ago +4 / -0

This is going to be a nice payday for the best 11th-15th players on NBA squads. About 200 NBA players have salaries of @2 million or less per year. The perennial powerhouse colleges will definitely "Moneyball" analyze the best of the back benchers and offer "education related" compensation of $2-3 million to 4-6 of these players they think would work best together. The big 4 Kentucky/Kansas/Duke/UNC would all pay out $10-20 million a year to have, every year, a 25-50% chance of winning the championship.

TheThreeSeashells 3 points ago +3 / -0

Those four already get a majority of the top recruits, so it means nothing in terms of where the blue chips end up. They stay for one year, then split for the NBA. That's still going to happen. Other schools can still compete by smart recruiting and building teams of players who will stick around for four years. They'll probably be better off recruiting as many white players as possible. A team of 5 solid white upperclassmen with a passion for winning is greater than a bunch of freshmen biding time until the NBA Draft. That's pretty much how Gonzaga built their program and how Butler made back-to-back finals a few years back. Also reference the 2014-15 Wisconsin team. Sure, not ALL white guys, but primarily white with their best players being white guys.

Forgototherpassword 2 points ago +2 / -0

But... But... Socialism has worked for College Athletes for so long, not getting paid, blowing out knees etc. before they can hit the big time... Colleges never really felt it. Worked out GREAT for them.

Chopblock 302 points ago +303 / -1

The systemic oppression is calling from inside the house!

Imransgarage 47 points ago +47 / -0


eagleeyeddjt 33 points ago +33 / -0

Hahaha top comment

fuckfortysix 15 points ago +15 / -0

Can we lay some god damn bricks here please, this needs to go to the top!!

V2021 167 points ago +171 / -4

More opportunities for money laundering now to swamp kids.

Simple_Doot 96 points ago +99 / -3

Yeah this is bad. This will be paid for by government grants, loans and scholarships i.e. taxpayer money. More kids will go through Marxist boot camp and come out on the other side thinking the system is better for them than their family.

spinometer 77 points ago +77 / -0

It's going to bring the trannies in womens sports to an absolute head, cuz now there's money in it.

Also male-female pay gap issue to head.

Popcorn time.

Ironlabel1 9 points ago +9 / -0

Ooooo good point! I need to buy some popcorn!

deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
Foreign_Aid_is_Theft 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah, how is this shit gonna jive with Title IX? Equal amount of player pay split between men and women?

One of the big problems with Title IX is that it is extremely vague on what "Equal" means so it can be dollars, # of athletes, # of sports and now player pay.

flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

Titile IX is stupid. Protected classes are stupid.

The Civil Rights Act was a net negative.

FreddyThePatriot 1 point ago +2 / -1

Equal pay for equal talent.

Women have no talent.

anonymousdonor 2 points ago +2 / -0

There has always been money in it.

anon2309011 2 points ago +2 / -0

I hope it gets even worse than that. Colleges give up on sports.

QLARP 1 point ago +1 / -0

The money is generated by the tickets and merchandise that the colleges steal from the student athletes.

Simple_Doot 2 points ago +2 / -0

And to offset money lost to pay athlete's they will raise tuition costs. They will not lose a penny because I guarantee you, as a society, we will further subsidize higher education.

QLARP -1 points ago +1 / -2

Thats just something you came up with

QLARP 1 point ago +1 / -0


IncredibleMrE1 127 points ago +129 / -2

Woke Democrats once again exploiting slave labor

WhiskeyDreams 10 points ago +34 / -24

No. The kids are getting expensive degrees, free housing, free food, free education. They get compensated just fine. This new rule is retarded.

I went to kids on basketball scholarships WHO COULD NOT READ. now there will be more of that bullshit in higher education.

Snipthetipandsip 16 points ago +27 / -11

Fed? Try again. There was a kid playing for a top tier basketball team that said he could barely afford meals on away games and had to mooch from fellow teammates. Meanwhile how much money is made from advertising during 1 month of the year - March Madness? These kids are playing in a game where billions of dollars are changing hands from advertising to bookies, and they don't see a dime. Yet, if these kids didn't play, none of that money would be generated. Not to mention that a FRACTION of them will make it to career level play. If we talk football you're asking kids to possibly forfeit their entire career due to injury, and won't ever have a chance to make it.

In my opinion the whole thing is retarded. Either make it so no money is generated (won't fucking happen) or pay the kids a portion of the BILLIONS being made.

Edit: Of all the replies I've received they've all had issues with the kid "lying" about not being fed, but have absolutely no qualms about the billions being made by greedy corporations. Hilarious.

TheThreeSeashells 8 points ago +9 / -1

Exactly. You hear all the bullshit about kids on a scholarship not being allowed to even get a part-time job. Not the blue chips, but some guy on a bowling or gymnastics scholarship or something like that. That might be fine for some parents who can afford that or the top-level recruits who are getting back-door payments and "gifts", but for someone who absolutely NEEDS the scholarship to attend college something actually meaningful, this helps out a little bit.

That said, because the recipients of this will likely be top-level recruits who can't spell their own name, they should be allowed to cap the compensation.

WhiskeyDreams 8 points ago +11 / -3

That’s bullshit and you know it. They get free food on campus AND stipends for away trips. You are a gullible fool.

censorthisss 7 points ago +8 / -1

There was a kid playing for a top tier basketball team that said he could barely afford meals on away games and had to mooch from fellow teammates.

They get their meals paid for during road trips so....

deleted 7 points ago +8 / -1
Redpillmachine 4 points ago +4 / -0

I had my meals covered even at a community college. It was only like 10 bucks for McDonald’s but that was perfectly fine

Spicemustfiow 4 points ago +4 / -0

It takes two to tango here.

He "said" it. But it took you to believe that garbage.

The top tier teams are run by sneaker companies who funnel money to athletes right now.

No way that kid was telling the truth. If he was truly broke government assistance gets him a meal card.

If he goes to the coach the coach helps him out to get a meal card.

If hes on a scholarship the scholarship gives him a meal card.

If he goes to the sneaker company they give him literal cash.

Snipthetipandsip 2 points ago +2 / -0

Okay. So who is making billions? At whose expense? Where is that money going? Are you okay with that?

Spicemustfiow 1 point ago +1 / -0

The simple answer here is that lesser players on the same teams are getting the money.

If these schools are forced to compensate top tier players more money they are just going to reimburse those top tier players from the same pool of cash.

Are you economically illiterate?

In other words if it’s a legit college funding then less lower tier players get scholarships.

If it’s a sneaker company then less lower tier players get cash.

All you did is buy into another economically illiterate leftists idea of exploitation.

The real “issue” was that lower tier athletes were being compensated more for their relative value.

Now 95% get fucked so 5% can benefit.

And who benefits the most? The same “exploiting” sneaker companies you were trying to convince me were being punished by this somehow.

You got it all backwards.

DIARRHEA_FIGHT 4 points ago +4 / -0

Let the market decide whether they're getting compensated just fine or they aren't. Some will think that the education, housing, and food are enough. Some will prefer monetary compensation, God knows they generate enough revenue.

Conservatism has a disposition towards solutions that distribute liberty as widely as possible. Work together through mutually beneficial cooperation rather than force.

Also your reverence for "higher education" is quaint. Universities are basically retard factories at this point. Let it go.

havemydata 2 points ago +2 / -0

Aren't kids forced through the college system instead of having the option to go pro? At that point pay them.

QLARP 2 points ago +2 / -0

If I generate millions by throwing a ball I want a slice fuck off commie.

FreddyThePatriot 0 points ago +1 / -1

If they want to negotiate for higher wages, then they are free to do so.

Tucso 100 points ago +105 / -5

Woah, so… college will be paying athletes? Isn’t a full ride scholarship worth something

Sphinx3peat 139 points ago +142 / -3


If you want to play a sport, go to the minor leagues.

War_Hamster 64 points ago +66 / -2

This will eventually kill college sports.

Sphinx3peat 129 points ago +129 / -0

Good. There is zero reason why tax payers should be funding collegiate sports.

RussianLimbaugh 40 points ago +42 / -2

I went to a big football school. Most of the players majored in psychology (easiest major or most football loving professors... I’m not sure). I learned very quickly to never sit near a football player & avoid being put in a group with them, because they’d mooch off everyone to not have to do any schoolwork. Loved them on Saturdays, wanted to punch them in the face during the week.

Liberty4All 9 points ago +9 / -0

Also went to a big football school. One of my friends was a graduate student in Geology. The Geology department offered a (very, very easy) basic geology course for non-majors. This course was popular with football players and others on sports scholarships who needed to get their required physical sciences credits.

The Geology majors called it "Rocks for Jocks" behind the athletes' backs.

My friend also tutored the athletes in the class for extra money. (The Athletic Department paid for tutoring.) He said it was a real chore trying to get some of them to do enough to just barely pass the class. Most of them didn't even pretend to care about their education; they were only at school to play football (or basketball, or whatever).

At that time, the most popular major for football players at that university was Physical Education.

Of course the vast majority of those players never made it to the NFL, much less made it big. A bunch of them ended up dead or in jail. But I can't help but imagine the rest of them becoming embittered, fat middle school or high school PE coaches who can't help telling their poor students all about their glory days over and over.

bidensmissingbrain 4 points ago +4 / -0

But I can't help but imagine the rest of them becoming embittered, fat middle school or high school PE coaches who can't help telling their poor students all about their glory days over and over.

But how much you wanna bet they could throw a football over them mountains?

Horkers4Trump 4 points ago +4 / -0

Threw four touchdown passes in the state championship game.

Liberty4All 1 point ago +1 / -0


WhiteTrashJesus 2 points ago +2 / -0

Almost got into a fight with a “varsity athlete” over this although I have to say he was a cunt and actually made it harder than if we had one less person in the group.

DrCowboyPresident 3 points ago +3 / -0

You didn't fight him?

You never did have the makings of a varsity athlete

WhiteTrashJesus 1 point ago +1 / -0

No I didn’t fight him it would have cost me thousands of dollars in tuition but i was able to successfully complete the project despite the hater and losers

Barkz 1 point ago +1 / -0

im a simple man, I see a Sopranos reference I uptrump.

War_Hamster 9 points ago +12 / -3

Out of curiosity, should taxpayers be funding high school sports?

It would seem the same argument should apply, no?

Wolverine 12 points ago +12 / -0

Public schools? No.

Tax payers are on the hook for education, not extra circular activities.

War_Hamster 10 points ago +11 / -1

There's a conversation to be had about funding, but I'm a huge supporter of organized sports. It's one of the best character building endeavors of all.

BasicKekinomics 11 points ago +11 / -0

Would you be willing to hold a gun to someone's head to make them give a part of their paycheck to San Douche's varsity sportsball team?

Because that's essentially what we do via the government with taxes that go to athletics.

Wolverine 3 points ago +3 / -0

Great start a community league.

LowKeyPede 1 point ago +1 / -0

Agree. Competition and learning to appreciate the highs and build character from the lows while being a good sport is so important for kids/youth. Learning how to interact with teammates and competitors constructively..... Athletic competition gets kids off the couch, away from screens, helps get them in shape, and gets them in front of coaches who often give support they may not be getting at home. I think youth athletic programs are just as important as academic, especially considering the poor job schools are doing with academics...not sure what garbage counts as academics these days...

Fabius 4 points ago +5 / -1

Taxes should not be used for education, period.

PaineThomas 5 points ago +5 / -0

To be fair, most major sports fund themselves and the smaller ones. Ohio state's football program is half their income. It pays for all other sports and the sports medicine research department.

Spicy_maymay 2 points ago +2 / -0

This will also hopefully pave the way for discrimination lawsuits that will harm the NCAA even more, seeing as blacks are ~80% of their players in football and basketball

Gmama2 2 points ago +2 / -0

There are a lot of HS students who go to class and keep their grades up so they can play on the team. This is true of both boys and girls sports. Sadly this will, like every liberal program hurt poor people the most.

doug2 9 points ago +9 / -0


rabdargab 5 points ago +5 / -0


Scutigera_coleoptrat 16 points ago +16 / -0

This ^ most people don't realize that NCAA is a shiny object that distracts people from the corrupt, bloated, and wokitarian stasis of higher education. The same folks who would denounce the actions of a particular school would wear a jersey and cheer on that same school at BW3 for muh sports in the same day.

Tread_not_on_me 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just take the money out of it. There’s no reason for anyone to make money off of college sports, that’s the crux of the issue. I guess you never played so you don’t get how good it is for people

Sphinx3peat 2 points ago +2 / -0

I played sports all my life. Including amateur rugby.

I still don’t like collegiate athletics. Inflates budgets, overhead, and footprints of universities.

There’s literally 0 reasons why an educational institution should be considered a recruiting ground for professional sports.

FiatLux 2 points ago +2 / -0

agreed - intramural stuff only/rec league

slowmotrin 38 points ago +39 / -1

That is what I always thought. Seems like the scholarship and future career is your compensation, if you're a superstar then you can even become a millionaire off that alone.

LowKeyPede 30 points ago +31 / -1

Scholarships, room and board, free tutoring and free passes when they fail classes. Free Tix for family to see games. I don't totally understand this issue, but the athletes at my university were spoiled, pampered and COMPENSATED

thallos 12 points ago +12 / -0

It'll probably be the same now they'll just put a price tag on it and itemize everything and it'll end up being magically the same amount they would have had to pay them without all those expenses

NC_patriot 10 points ago +10 / -0

At my college, they even had their own dorm, and it was 100x nicer than the regular dorms.

Liberty4All 9 points ago +9 / -0

...and their own cafeteria, with much better quality food, all you can eat at every meal, completely free.

NC_patriot 5 points ago +6 / -1

MUCH better food.

doug2 8 points ago +8 / -0

The issue is what's on the books mate. Cant exactly argue "we pay them so much illegally tho!" Well scholarships are above board but you get it.

Also, this is great. Wait until the women's rowing team gets 5$ a month while men's football gets half a mil a season.... for the white qbs.

FireannDireach 5 points ago +6 / -1

I won't argue that college athletes are coddled. I've seen it personally, college players who don't have to attend class but pass, they're given perks like cars to attend a specific campus or school, etc., but that's all a drop in the bucket compared to the billions the schools make in profit off their players.

You have to keep separate the perks they give the players to go to that school, and the money the school makes off the games and merch and TV rights. This ruling doesn't negate the perks the players get to go to a specific school, this addresses what the school does with them, once they get there. This isn't just selling t-shirts and tickets, this is a billion dollar industry, off the backs of the students. The TV rights alone are insanely valuable.

So, the piggies in the administrations in these schools will have to give up more of their pile now. They can negotiate better TV rights deals, or sell more merchandise, or take less pay themselves (hahaha, yeah, I have jokes), and they can continue on as normal.

Now, the broader issue is, this applies to all college sports. Some campuses have basketball, football, baseball, volleyball, gymnastics, tennis...a lot of olympic athletes train at certain schools. All of them now will be expecting a paycheck.

Gonna be spicy. There's a lot of money on the table here.

sigint1984 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not all athletes are granted scholarships or room and board. And many don't make it to the pros after college. Due to all the free passes for classes and "learning," they end up at a dead-end job with a worthless degree. I don't feel sorry for the Unis in this case as they are making bank off their backs. These same schools are responsible for the student loan crisis. Using liberal logic against themselves, Colleges and Universities need to "pay their fair share" across the board.

bluto36 9 points ago +9 / -0

not saying you are wrong but the admin guy running the NCAA makes 5mil per year. the top coaches make 6 to 9 mil.

meanwhile scholarship athletes get room and board, tuition, books and a small stipend depending on sport and school. they also dont get to work while coaches get paid for commercials, schools get paid to sell their jerseys and NCAA gets billions to sell them in promotions. of course the .01% that turn pro will make money.

Unzipped_Patriot 7 points ago +13 / -6

If a regular student in college writes a bestselling novel then than student is allowed to earn money from his skills, even if he hasn't graduated yet, and even if he is on an academic scholarship. So why can't an athlete do the same thing? The athlete is actually helping to generate income for the university, shouldn't he be allowed to earn money from his skills?

doug2 12 points ago +13 / -1

Because that book was a private endeavor and had nothing to do with the school? I'm not saying I disagree about them getting paid, I dont really know, but your argument sucks.

Unzipped_Patriot 0 points ago +1 / -1

The athletic program is dependent on athletes. How are the workers not entitled to share in the results of their own labor?

Tendies_or_GTFO 2 points ago +2 / -0

An engineering student cannot start building and selling robots he or she builds in the school's engineering lab.

Your example of a book is a weak one, more an outlier than the rule. A college-aged basketball player can go to school and play in the NBA straight from high school instead of the NCAA, and still attend that college. But when you play on the schools's team, using its resources, in its facilities, that's not "labor".

IvotedforTrumptwice 2 points ago +2 / -0

I go to my job, use their resources, and still get paid.

Tendies_or_GTFO 2 points ago +2 / -0

Apples and oranges. I volunteer for the Trump campaign, use their resources, and don't get paid. Different relationship.

Student athletes are not employees. When you use the school's resources, while under scholarship as a student, you are exactly that, a student. Not an employee.

Unzipped_Patriot 0 points ago +1 / -1

How is that not labor? Everyone and everything else to do with athletics is allowed to make money off of the athletes except for the athletes themselves, how is this fair for the athletes? You can define terms however you feel like, that doesn't mean that their labor isn't labor. The athletic program needs the athletes just as much as the athletes need the athletic program, and both should share in the benefits of that relationship.

Tendies_or_GTFO 1 point ago +1 / -0

How is that not labor?

Define "labor", succinctly. If you cannot do this, ignore everything below.

Everyone and everything else to do with athletics is allowed to make money off of the athletes except for the athletes themselves.

Cheerleaders do not get paid. The band members do not get paid. The student support staff (equipment and so on) do not get paid. The only people involved in college athletics who receive direct monetary payment are the people who are not students attending the university and participating in the athletic program during the pursuit of a degree. Student athletes do receive compensation in the form of scholarships, free professional sports training, free access to weight and workout facilities, free access to national televised spotlights. Let's talk the value of that for a moment. How much does a professional, sport-specific personal trainer cost per year? What is the cost of a membership to a cutting edge, sport-specific weight room and training facility cost per year? What is the cost per year for the volumes of workout and sports-specific supplements that student athletes are provided? What is the cost for a college education, per year?

Go ahead. Do the math. It should surprise you. As a student, which is what these kids are, you gain access to these extracurricular activities (look up what that word means) in the pursuit of your education. College sports are not jobs. Fun fact, you can get lose your spot on the team for not performing well academically, but you cannot be kicked out of the university for sucking at football.

We can discuss how college sports should not be a thing because of the incestuous and corrupt relationships it creates, if you like. I would much rather there be no NCAA and instead, college kids who want to play football would play in an amateur or semi-pro league while attending school, except the economics of that would mean about 1/10 of the number of teams and would leave so many kids without an opportunity to showcase their talent enough to get a shot in the NFL. The NCAA provides access. It's like being a band on American Bandstand, or a singer on American Idol. As a former musician, and athlete, the access to the opportunity to be noticed and put moves on game film (or get on a show like America's Got Talent) is worth tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

SilverBackTrump 6 points ago +6 / -0

This is the best example. No other scholarship dictates that a student can’t make money from the same skills that landed them the scholarship.

Tendies_or_GTFO 1 point ago +1 / -0

Neither does the NCAA. One of my closest high school friends played professional hockey while he went to university instead of playing for the school. Using the school's resources in pursuit of a school function largely negates that.

LowKeyPede 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm trying to figure out where I stand on this...thinking out loud... The difference in this scenario is the student author isn't necessarily dependant on the resources of the school to make money--facilities, promotion, coaching, recruiting, etc. The author uses the library, which all students have equal access to. Athletes are completely dependant on the sports apparatus at the school for their success and are already compensated. If a university promoted, gave scholarships tied to published books, sold books for the authors, the author would be more 'indebted' to the university.

Unzipped_Patriot 1 point ago +2 / -1

The success of the sports apparatus is dependent on the athlete.

anonymousdonor 1 point ago +2 / -1

This is not a good argument.

Unzipped_Patriot 1 point ago +3 / -2

Yours is clearly better. Thanks offering nothing.

anonymousdonor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Better than offering something that is bad.

Apersonofinterest 1 point ago +1 / -0

Going pro is still like winning the lottery. Only 2% of college players make it to the professional leagues. That’s hardly a guaranteed incentive considering how much colleges make off of their sports teams. Tickets sales, merchandising, licensing, broadcast. This is really going to hit them hard if they have to start fairly compensating their athletes.

Billybobcuccio 8 points ago +11 / -3

I’d say a college degree is worthless in today’s America. Paying liberal moron professors to educate you is beyond stupid .

Tucso 10 points ago +10 / -0

I agree. A degree only shows an employer “I’m trainable”

doug2 5 points ago +9 / -4

Which is a lot. Lol. It also says "I'm not a total retard."

patR1OT 7 points ago +7 / -0

It definitely doesn't say that. Have you seen some of these complete fucking retards who have college degrees?

Barbs 1 point ago +2 / -1

Most employers look at what field your degree is in. You don’t find too many retarded STEM grads, for example.

WhitePowerRanger 4 points ago +4 / -0

This is wrong. I have an AS. I make 150K a year with it. The people I work with all have BS or higher, they make less than a third of my salary. Why? Cause they’re dumb af

I’m literally licensed in virology, took an entire course on it. I paid attention everyone I work with has taken that course too as well as many more on biology. I literally made this 50 year old lady feel dumb as fuck (I’m 30) for trying to convince me that masks and hand washing is what reduced the flu season to non existent. All I said was “awesome. So why did we have a covid season at the same time then?” She’s been doing this profession for damn near 30 years and hasn’t once used her brain

BasicKekinomics 3 points ago +3 / -0

Everyone is getting covid because no one is wearing their masks!

That's right!

No one is getting the flu because people are wearing masks.

That's ri.. >:-|

TrumpTrain425 2 points ago +2 / -0

No, it really doesn't. In the real world it shows you are a MIDWIT. Not smart enough to excel without a pipeline telling you what to do/think.

DIARRHEA_FIGHT 1 point ago +1 / -0

IMO in my field, and certainly in my own involvement in the hiring process, a college degree is a mark against a candidate unless they're over 30.

CannonballJunior 3 points ago +3 / -0

Of course that depends on what the degree is in, but for the majority of degree programs that college athletes are enrolled in, yeah pretty much.

doug2 2 points ago +3 / -1

You'd be wrong than.

Jefferson 4 points ago +4 / -0

"paying". The suit was related to education based expenses, laptops (makes sense), and post graduate internships (super shady). But, yeah, the blue chip schools will now recruit based on benefits rather than educational opportunities.

But this stems from Anit-Trust laws. Student athletes don't have competition in the market for their services. It all flows through the NCAA. And that's anti-capitalist.

BarneyFrank 3 points ago +3 / -0

Well look where the past 20 years of gender studies have taken us. Would you say we are closer to understanding gender now? Look very hard to find any which are worth the paper they are written on.

2008RonPaul2012 80 points ago +81 / -1

Lol I remember a girl I dated in college one time told me she didn't like the NBA because it was like a white coach ordering around a bunch of black guys, and it made her think of slavery. Yet she was into NCAA basketball, even though it's exactly the same, except they don't get paid anything...lol. Libs are so stupid.

AntiCandyCommie 26 points ago +27 / -1

Doesn't every single one of those players make millions more than the coach?

SellTheSun 36 points ago +37 / -1

Doesn't every single one of those players make millions more than the coach?


Just like slavery.

flashersenpai 5 points ago +5 / -0


2008RonPaul2012 10 points ago +10 / -0

Yeah haha. So stupid. Being a worldwide celebrity with hundreds of millions of dollars and career freedom to move wherever you want while signing endorsement deals is like slavery. But being required to work for one institution and barred from working in your field for a year, while your employer earns millions from your services and likeness. Your employer compensates you with food, housing, healthcare, and they teach you how to read. Nothing wrong with that.

deleted 13 points ago +14 / -1
2008RonPaul2012 5 points ago +5 / -0

Pro players? They don't get traded. Their contract gets traded. They can retire at any time. They can play for another league if they want. There's no element of force involved to justify equating it to slavery.

My point is that girl somehow saw "slavery" when looking at the NBA yet completely ignored how NCAA is worse for the player in every single regard. Yet she sees herself I'm sure as an advocate for the little guy and an anti-racist.

NADSAQ 73 points ago +77 / -4

So glad the Supreme Court had space on their busy docket for such a monumentally important case.

Continue 12 points ago +13 / -1

It makes them look like they're actually doing something to the average person, I guess. Now they can go back to what they do most of the time, which will probably be just about nothing with the current resident and makeup of congress.

realPhantomFuck 3 points ago +3 / -0

C'mon, man!

slowmotrin 41 points ago +41 / -0

Reminds me of an old south park episode.

AngeredKabar 28 points ago +28 / -0

Ah yes the "Student Ath-o-letes".

BoomShtick 11 points ago +11 / -0

"....I'd be willing to offer ya 40 for two of the white ones and 50 for the blacks"

evi1cheese 34 points ago +36 / -2

Each and every student athlete deserves reparations out of those giant endowments.

SirSeizureSalad 19 points ago +19 / -0

I identify as a student athlete, I'll take a cut as well, thanks.

War_Hamster 4 points ago +4 / -0

I was a student athlete. You can have my share of the blood money.

Parhelion12 4 points ago +4 / -0

As a student, I frequently found myself running late, jumping through paperwork hurdles, swimming in liberal ideology, and taking big swings at big projects. Student athlete identity confirmed.

Knowthyself 25 points ago +25 / -0

At least now casuals will see just how much these are sports programs parading as schools.

War_Hamster 7 points ago +7 / -0

And to the 99% of college athletes who don't go pro.....enjoy working at Walmart.

throwawayicanremembe 3 points ago +3 / -0

The 99% of college athletes that don't play blue chip football or basketball that used their athleticism to earn a real degree because they know they wont go pro are boned. They can now enjoy paying for college shit like the rest of us schmucks while they play a janky club sport because they are less than worthless to the school. All their sports are done and their scholarship money now goes to 10 guys that were going to make millions after school too. This is going to be a clusterfuck for the ages.

War_Hamster 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yup. But that's ok. I don't think our college system is going to survive much longer in its current form anyways.

WU_HAN_FRU 1 point ago +1 / -0

So true.

Jerseydeplorable 21 points ago +22 / -1


Damean1 20 points ago +20 / -0

So this opens up a whole new can of worms. Who decides an athlete's value? Does the football team get paid as much as say the lacrosse team? Or the swim team? How much is a college education truly worth and will it be factored into the equation? If so, will students have to pay taxes on that "income" like all other income?

This is going to be interesting to watch.

Jabron661 11 points ago +11 / -0

I mean, the angles are endless.

How about small vs big colleges? Can players sign contracts just to play sports and not be students now, are they employees?

And does taxpayer money factor in?

Good lord this is gonna be an apocalypse of lawyering from all sides.

Not to mention the great suffering the colleges sports themselves are going to suffer, all the tradition will be shattered into 1000 pieces.

Now its going to be who has the most money.

Before, many schools with good programs could draw athletes in as they would be playing for a good program, now its going to be all about money,.

Continue 3 points ago +3 / -0

Can players sign contracts just to play sports and not be students now, are they employees?

Interesting question, it would pretty much be suicide for the NCAA if that happened though. If they were just a minor league instead of college, people wouldn't care nearly as much.

It's already known that some of the top athletes at sports focused programs are basically pretending to go to school while they have special classes and tutors that actually do their work and they probably get a passing grade even if they blow it off altogether.

But all of that is necessary for them to keep the "image" of being college sports. If they just explicitly hire non-student athletes, that ruins the scam.

censorthisss 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not to mention that every single college sports program loses money except for football, men's basketball and men's baseball (only at some schools).

We all know how this will play out. They'll demand that the women's lacrosse team is paid the same as the men's football team.

Iliterallylovejv 6 points ago +6 / -0

I hope the student athletes now have to pay for uniforms and all the gear they get. Oregon is so F-ed. Lol. No more bowl handouts (they get swag for going to a bowl game). Volleyball is a title 9 sport meaning all volleyball athletes get full rides like football athletes. Now that they're paid, watch women sports get paid way less than the male sports.

angryrhino83 6 points ago +6 / -0

This will lead to lawsuits out the wazoo. Women will be suing left and right unless they are paid the same.

Fabius 2 points ago +2 / -0

Get woke.

WhitePowerRanger 2 points ago +2 / -0

Great. Just another thing women get to complain about, as if they needed another reason

Iliterallylovejv 1 point ago +1 / -0

I know. I'm so excited!

War_Hamster 6 points ago +6 / -0

Title IX will have a huge impact. Non-revenue generating sports are going to get cut, which means women's sports will be practically eliminated.

Smaller schools won't be able to compete and will have empty taxpayer funded stadiums.

Lking14 3 points ago +3 / -0

Paying athletes makes them professionals and are no longer amateurs.

TrumpIsMyyPresident 1 point ago +1 / -0

Bet this won't make "gifts" illegal anymore either so that'll be fun to watch as well.

Damean1 1 point ago +1 / -0


40-More-Years 18 points ago +18 / -0

Now do election fraud

FireannDireach 4 points ago +4 / -0

Hell, I'll settle for "now do antitrust on Hollywood and Big Tech".

Fabius 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'd settle for no government involvement in our lives beyond a judicial system.

Dckman 17 points ago +18 / -1


Dckman 27 points ago +28 / -1


Continue 4 points ago +4 / -0

It could be the case that the very top athletes in big sports were effectively subsidizing the average athletes, so some of these second string athletes or those in sports outside football and basketball may actually lose money. The top athletes may be able to demand far more though.

Overall will probably cost schools money, assuming this actually forces them to change (direct financial payment is apparently left ambiguous now.)

infeststation 2 points ago +2 / -0

It probably won’t affect 90%+ of players outside of recruitment. A lot of athletes don’t even have full scholarships, and likewise have no real pro prospects. There’s a tiny minority of players who are very valuable, probably in line with the Pareto distribution.

Continue 1 point ago +1 / -0

But I mean the less valuable players could actually lose even more though.

As a hypothetical, imagine you have a team of 30 players with a million dollar "budget" of benefits.

With the current situation, the maximum you can give a player is around $50,000 with tuition and benefits. So again, this is just a simplified example, but maybe that means you give the maximum of $50,000 to each of the top 10 most valuable players and the other 20 players get an average of $20,000 from what's left.

Okay, so now imagine instead that there's no salary cap and the very best player gets $300,000, the next gets $175,000 and the third gets $100,000? Even some of the players who were previously full scholarship might lose that status and be moved down to partial.

They also might funnel money from some of the less financially beneficial sports and move it to the more popular ones - that was already the case to some degree but even more so. They won't be able to give a full scholarship to the sixth best women's golfer if they need money for the third string football quarterback. (Well, with title 9 they might have to take the money away from a male golfer instead, so maybe women's sports will still get subsidized.)

That's what I mean when I say the best athletes and most popular sports were likely subsidizing the rest, when that "subsidy" disappears because you have to pay the star basketball and football players the market value, there's a chance that the others end up with less than the current amount. (Of course it's a bit more complicated than that since there's an overall university budget instead of just it being an isolated sports budget, so it's not clear whether $1 added to one sport means it will come exactly $1 from some other sport or athlete.)

infeststation 2 points ago +2 / -0

The average division 1 athlete has something like 17k scholarship, less than the average tuition and fees of those schools. And that $17k is “store credit,” which costs the school far less.

So yeah, it’s complicated, and time will tell if we actually see any changes and what they are, but this system stinks like shit and something needs to be done about it.

FireannDireach 4 points ago +4 / -0

Funny, but they wouldn't be able to recruit players with that. If they want college ball to continue, and they want the better players, to fund their own paychecks by having winning teams, they gotta pay now, on top of scholarships and perks.

College ball just got real expensive. The bidding wars in the draft season will see numbers like the NFL.

JimmyJam 15 points ago +15 / -0

This is not what the court ruled - they ruled the NCAA is in violation not because they don't compensate athletes but because they restrict compensation of athletes by schools and third parties. This does not force compensation, it lifts the restriction on compensation.

bidensmissingbrain 7 points ago +7 / -0

Sad I had to scroll this far down to find someone who actually knows what the ruling means.

This is basically the court ruling that the NCAA can't tell college sport players that they can't make any money off of anything related to the sport they have a scholarship for. The most extreme example would be college football players can now play for an NFL team while also playing for a college team. A more realistic example would be *insert popular college athlete here* can now be sponsored by XYZ company.

Colleges are still under the same "no paying players" rules as they were before.

GibsonDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

cciv's post below says that schools CAN pay their players under this ruling.

deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
cciv 3 points ago +3 / -0

The NCAA isn't going to pay anyone, but they now can't stop a wealthy school from hiring top athletes for millions and winning NCAA championships.

sak951 13 points ago +15 / -2

What's ironic is the lawsuit was brought up by ex-student athletes. Wouldn't it need to be brought by current student athletes to have standing?

spezisacuckold 11 points ago +11 / -0

Standing is whatever the court in question feels like that day. Nothing more.

sak951 3 points ago +4 / -1

Glad to hear the highest court in the land operates in a consistent manner...........

flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

rule of law is a lie and always has been

Spicemustfiow 2 points ago +2 / -0

They may be "former" because the suit may have been brought during the time they were athletes but now they are not.

Please pay no attention to the fact that this is the exact same reason used to deny standing on scores of election cases though.

tombombadil 1 point ago +1 / -0

They have standing because they were effected by it and it is an ongoing practice.

deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
Narcan 12 points ago +12 / -0

Ha Ha get ready fuckers!

GaTechGrad 12 points ago +12 / -0

At this point, they just need to remove sports from college. The thug-ball players really don't have any connection to the educational institution aside from wearing the college's logo on their helmet.

eagleeyeddjt 7 points ago +7 / -0

This is delicious news

WU_HAN_FRU 7 points ago +7 / -0

It's about 120 years too late, I know, but the colleges and universities should have been stopped before they took over the club teams that made up collegiate sports back then.

They just helped themselves to property and brands that essentially belonged to the students. They never should have been allowed to get away with that.

GoodvsEvil2 6 points ago +6 / -0

End all tax payer funded assistance. I do not want to pay some idiots playing sports games.

Deepthroht 6 points ago +6 / -0

Don’t most of these colleges already give these retard athletes a free pass by passing them along even though they have straight Fs on their report cards?

realPhantomFuck 2 points ago +2 / -0


tombombadil 1 point ago +1 / -0

This makes that no longer worth it for colleges to do that. It’s a good thing.

boonjosh 6 points ago +6 / -0

Give me NCAA Football 22 and I could care less.

WU_HAN_FRU 3 points ago +3 / -0

Right? Create your own sports reality. Because the IRL one sucks.

boonjosh 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sadly, but for IRL sports only thing I care about is the NL West. GO PADRES.

WU_HAN_FRU 1 point ago +1 / -0

I no longer support specific teams or get excited about anything sportsball related.

I just play Madden occasionally.

boonjosh 1 point ago +1 / -0

I feel ya. Just don't need my Grandmas wrath from the afterlife if I don't watch baseball.

shadows_of_the_mind 5 points ago +5 / -0

I would imagine sports are a bigger money maker for colleges than the useless gender studies degrees they charge full tuition for. Now that colleges have to pay their student athletes, I'll wager they're gonna raise tuition costs to make up for lost profits

TrumpIsMyyPresident 5 points ago +5 / -0

Ding ding ding. The average student will pay more in tuition. These schools will NEVER take a pay cut. Raise the minimum wage, price of goods and services go up. This is literally no different.

MoxieBoom 5 points ago +5 / -0

Soooo, does that mean big tuition hikes incoming to offset the cost of now having to pay their athletes?

XSRRIDER23 5 points ago +5 / -0

no more scholarships

TraumaHotel 4 points ago +4 / -0

Trash court

TheWinningNeverStops 1 point ago +1 / -0

Major trash. Overwhelming traitors.

Puppy528 4 points ago +4 / -0

So, they publicly refuse to even hear a case where an entire state had to sue another state over illegal actions affecting the results of a federal election,thousands of people have sworn under oath that people committed high-crimes against the nation through fraud, and the very President of the United States asked them directly to restore law and order through doing their job..

But sports, on the other hand....

JerryJerryJerry 4 points ago +4 / -0

Feels like a good time to take a serious risk/benefit look at federal spending in this area.

NotAHandshake 4 points ago +4 / -0

And just like that, college sports disappeared, kek.

Hear_The_Lions_Sing 4 points ago +4 / -0

Somebody ought to be paid to sit through all that brainwashing and come out with a useless degree.

whatareudumb 4 points ago +4 / -0

this just in. college tuition will be doubled at all colleges for the 2021/2022 school year

SirBuzzKillingtonVI 3 points ago +3 / -0

This was a more important antitrust case than Google? Wtf.

Marzieattaks 3 points ago +3 / -0

Maybe I am not as smart as the rest. What does this mean exactly as compared to the way its done now? I don't know anything about Antitrust law.

bidensmissingbrain 6 points ago +6 / -0

I means players can now make money from their image/brand/etc while still on college scholarship.

Previously, it was against NCAA rules for college athletes to make money off of their name/image/likeness while playing college sports while on scholarship. This ruling invalidates that rule. So now, if you're a big college football star, you can sell your own line of crappy chinese-made headphones or appear in yogurt commercials.

InarosPrime 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm no lawyer or expert on this, but I think I understand how antitrust applies after reading your comment.

Antitrust laws prevent monopolies and groups of businesses conspiring to control the price of a product. The athletes' labor is the product. It was forced to be $0 by a conspiracy of colleges and NCAA agreements, thus that violates anti-trust laws.

Fabius 2 points ago +2 / -0

It means that the cost of tuition at big sports colleges is going to skyrocket.

rossiFan 3 points ago +3 / -0


Bigdeal 3 points ago +3 / -0

Stop supporting sports ball and these commie schools. I am done with all of them.

jrgreen73 3 points ago +3 / -0

Time for NCAA and colleges to pay reparations to all former athletes who played on their slave teams.

deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
MAK90 1 point ago +2 / -1

It's exactly what they'll do as if anyone can afford tuition now lmao

apathy_meh 3 points ago +3 / -0

I think getting a full ride to learn even when you can't spell Wednesday is an even trade.

ArriveViolently 3 points ago +3 / -0

Glad they full the docket with this nonsense rather than the coup. So much more important!

wolverineTEDDY 3 points ago +3 / -0

...does this mean we can play NCAA Football games again on Playstation?

Kek_The_World 3 points ago +3 / -0

So let me get this straight, the supreme court cannot get off their asses when it comes to election fraud but college sports that’s how they use their time?

Jimmytraficantsghost 3 points ago +3 / -0

Comedy gold

gaijin_ronin 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't give a fuck about sports ball. They get free college. Ok now make them pay like everyone else.


Red_Princess 2 points ago +2 / -0

I really couldn't care less about Sportsball.

hect0rH0ePr0tect0r 2 points ago +2 / -0


pmp45 2 points ago +2 / -0

who cares.. fuck sports... so pointless.. bread and circus..

Kekistan_United 2 points ago +2 / -0


a couple hundred billion dollars to all the college kids that they enslaved over the decades, should solve it

angryrhino83 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just watch universities cut sports across the board and women's sports too if they can get away with it. Women's sports (other than volleyball maybe) bring in no revenue for schools.

DicerningSword 2 points ago +2 / -0

Profitable Athletic department s will now spin off into separate for profit businesses. Minor league officially..

WhiteTrashJesus 2 points ago +2 / -0

I honestly don’t think it would change much the programs that make the most money are already the most sought after team to be recruited to. So those ones will probably be paying the most and bad teams will probably play minimum wage.

SisterCovfefe 2 points ago +2 / -0

I agree with you. There's already a huge difference between top tier and middling schools in terms of revenue generated.