Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ashleyorelse t1_izwp6x5 wrote

Reply to comment by PierogiPowered in PA High School Athletes Can Now Profit From Name, Image, Likeness by gvillepa

The reasons many people give for WHY they want those kids to benefit apply to other kids as well.

Yet the other kids don't see any of the benefit.

Meanwhile, the state could instead be looking at other, better things that might benefit more kids.

More education funding in general. Programs to help kids from lower income families afford the costs often associated with extra curricular activities. Initiatives to help reduce class sizes, which have a tremendous positive correlation to education outcomes.

Instead, they serve up this idea so that the star athletes who already get outsized attention can now monetize that while the other kids get nothing as usual.

As an aside:

And it's always the same kids, too. Small or large districts, the same kids tend to dominate every sport. The star QB is also a leader on the basketball team and then on the baseball team in the spring. The head cheerleader is also the basketball captain and runs track in the spring.

−2

RipTide275 t1_izwwnht wrote

Of course the state should be doing all those things, but NIL has nothing to do with that. State isn’t paying the kids, private businesses are

9

ashleyorelse t1_izxmger wrote

I know who is paying.

My point is if private businesses want to support high school or lower kids - and these are kids, not adults - they should be supporting all of them, not a select few.

I'd be for the state saying fine, you want to sponsor kids, the money goes into a pool that benefits all of them by law.

The star athletes can reap the benefits of selling themselves after they graduate all they want, but public schools should not exist to enrich a few kids while others can't even afford to participate.

Tax dollars are going to subsidize or outright pay for these activities and sports. They should therefore support all kids equally.

Let kids be kids. Let them learn, which is what school is for in the first place. If businesses want to help that, great. But for them to use the taxpayer funded activities of kids as a launching point to help only some kids is wrong.

−1

[deleted] t1_izxpjjw wrote

[deleted]

2

ashleyorelse t1_izxrek0 wrote

A few things:

  1. It's not labor. They are kids doing a school activity. It's supposed to be fun and educational. These kids are not employees doing a job. It's not about giving them a chance to make money, nor should it be.

  2. It's taxpayer funded. This means to pay some kids and not others is to use the taxpayer funded system meant for education to favor some kids over others. That's ridiculous. Public education provides opportunities for all kids.

  3. What's odd is that anyone would ever see kids doing school activities as "labor".

−1

[deleted] t1_izxrs7n wrote

[deleted]

2

ashleyorelse t1_izxsolr wrote

  1. Schools can and should be using any money to invest in the activities and athletics programs to give more kids opportunities. Why should a few kids get to personally profit off of taxpayer funded programs?

  2. No, every kid does not have an opportunity to earn money from sports under this system. But they would if the schools got the money and reinvested in the programs. Which would make logical sense.

  3. You claim I lack understanding, but won't explain. So unless you're willing to "educate" me, I call BS. You're just trying to dismiss my arguments without making any of your own.

0

[deleted] t1_izxsxuy wrote

[deleted]

1

ashleyorelse t1_izxuunw wrote

  1. I already knew that. It's what I'm arguing against.
  2. Under the new system, any kid does not have the opportunity to make money by sports.
  3. You haven't made any real points at all. You even assumes I didn't know the basic premise in your first point, which was never true. You don't even know what you're arguing.
  4. r/antiwork is a great sub. You don't understand it if you somehow think it's about being lazy.
  5. Not everything requires blame in this world. When there is blame, sometimes it rightly falls on the system. Perhaps you'd rather advocate for never trying to fix broken systems, but that is part of why we don't do enough to improve things that need improved.
  6. A good opportunity for some at the expense of others isn't a good opportunity. It's an entitlement for a few.
0

[deleted] t1_izxv60b wrote

[deleted]

1

ashleyorelse t1_izxx3r7 wrote

So you were being satirical?

0

[deleted] t1_izxxs6y wrote

[deleted]

1

ashleyorelse t1_izy0xmj wrote

Let's break that down:

You're not being satirical, which means you are seriously taking up these positions.

I made some great points, and you know I did, so of course you hope I wasn't being serious. You don't even have a real argument for any of it. If you did, you'd have been responding with that. But there's a big reason you haven't done that, which leads us to...

What's hilarious is the classic pattern you're using once you realized you were losing this argument. To wit:

You know your argument has been absolutely devastated, so you refuse to continue making legitimate attempts, because you know they'll just be devastated too. BUT, you have to save face, so you decide to counter by insulting the other person and/or the argument itself.

Congratulations on being the most basic of internet trolls.

If I'm wrong about this and you want to show that, you'd respond to the points I made with legit arguments. But no one in your position who has chosen the path you have ever does that, and I seriously doubt you'll be the one to break the mold.

Instead, you'll come back with some other remark you think is a "witty" way to try to insult me and/or our entire argument because what I've just said now will make you feel like that is necessary. After all, you can't have me pointing out how ridiculous you're being without defending yourself.

If you somehow decide to be different than every other troll out there and actually respond to my points with legit arguments of your own, I'll be shocked, but at that point we can continue the discussion.

Otherwise, I'll simply tell you to have a nice day and move on.

0

[deleted] t1_izy1c2b wrote

[deleted]

1

ashleyorelse t1_izyfjn1 wrote

No wonder I devastated your argument so easily. You're used to arguing with inanimate objects that can't argue back. In any case, this is over now, as I said it would be. Have a nice day.

This would be the appropriate time to acknowledge your loss either explicitly, or implicitly by simply not responding. I'll thank you in advance for your graciousness in doing that. Again, have a nice day.

1

RipTide275 t1_izxpthg wrote

I get what you’re saying, but the assumption you’re making is that the businesses are doing this to support kids. That’s not the reason for NIL. The businesses are getting endorsements/advertising to support the business, the fact that athletes benefit is secondary. Anyway, I think as another poster said, the dollars involved and number of athletes benefiting will be minimal. ✌🏾

1

ashleyorelse t1_izxrxju wrote

I understand how it works and am not making assumptions.

Let the business get those benefits - but the money goes to the activities and athletic budget for the school. This benefits all the students rather than a few.

This is my point exactly - all the students should benefit. It's high school, not college or pro sports or activities.

1