In an April 3 column, College football players should not have the right to unionize, Greg Cote says derisively that student-athletes fighting for the right to unionize are emphasizing the latter label over the former.
When executives at ESPN or Nike look at the Canes, do they see students before athletes? Is a coach being paid $4 million to win football games looking first-and-foremost at whether the kids on the field are getting the best education possible?
Let's be honest: The players aren’t to blame for the introduction of the profit motive to college football. They’ve simply noticed that they’re the only participants in the business of the NCAA who are barred from benefiting from the demand they create.
If folks at the NCAA were proactive, they could find solutions that preserve the integrity of the game, and their own. Compared to the large amounts of money changing hands, the small changes that would improve the lives of student-athletes, like year-round stipends and health coverage for long-term injuries, seem paltry.
Carlos Odio, Miami