Hacker News Reader

Comment by kodablah | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

In terms of title IX repercussions, there very much is.

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.

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 $$

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.

That already happens now. See Ole Miss: https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/2/23/14704892...

One is an employee, the other is basically an influencer?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com