In 2021, a Supreme Court ruling forced the NCAA, the governing body of college sports, to change their rules about athletes profiting off Name, Image and Likeness (NIL), or more simply, it allowed players to make money through personal endorsements. The concern now is it is not always the best players snagging the high dollar deals, particularly in women's sports. Rather, it is the best looking players who may also have mediocre stats. The Free Press published an article about the Cavinder Twins, 2 beautiful blondes who play basketball for the University of Miami. The two are making millions off of their stunning looks, while better players who might not be as traditionally attractive are not getting the branding deals.
EQUITY: The NCAA is frustrated that the best looking (not best playing) athletes are making millions. They call it their ‘hot girl problem’. Should attractive people be allowed to make more than unattractive people? Should earnings be divided equally?https://t.co/wXFGsJiVxl
— @amuse (@amuse) June 13, 2023
Twitter, of course, had many thoughts to share on this divisive issue.
Lol welcome to reality
— november2-0 (@0November2) June 13, 2023
People will pay more to see attractive people perform. Been going on for thousands of years. It’s unstoppable.
— DudeBro (@imdudebro) June 13, 2023
Isn't this how its worked since hot girls and money were invented?
— The Nature Boy Dick Hammer (@EssentialBusin7) June 13, 2023
C'monnn man you can't penalize people for been pretty because you're ugly...lmao
— Black-Trump (@Wilfred01748994) June 13, 2023
Yes.
— Gideon on Gaming (@GideonOnGaming) June 13, 2023
Smart people benefit from their brains.
Strong people benefit from their brawn.
Let attractive people benefit from their beauty.
Many tweeps seemed to believe this was just how the world turns. Attractive people will always have advantages "regulars" just do not get. Such is life and how it has been since the beginning of time.
Sign a contract so the team shares the earnings. Then the team would owe the face of the contract for any work involved. The team doesn't deserve the same share. It could be nice to share a percentage, as long as it's agreed to by contract ahead of time by the team.
— Dan Brisson (@Dan_Brisson_) June 13, 2023
Recommended
Others felt players should sign a contract benefiting the whole team with perhaps a larger share going to the "hot girl". Then, all players would earn something. Sounds a little like socialism, to be honest.
No, because that would be Collectvism, which is Communism.
— Vere Absolutum (@IntelATX) June 13, 2023
So, yeah, one person working to benefit the whole is exactly what that would be. Yikes!
The NCAA opened the door. Now they need to live with the consequences.
— Dan Stilwell (@realdanstilwell) June 13, 2023
Perhaps they opened a Pandora's Box and the consequences were unforeseen.
I heard a story about a trans racing and literally stopped and waited for his competition (the women) to catch up to him - he was so far ahead - and ultimately won by over five minutes while he sat and ate a sandwich waiting for them to come in. He now has first place of the…
— JoanOfArc (@JoanOfArc287) June 13, 2023
One pithy tweep compared this situation to the unfair advantages men who decide to compete in women's sports have over other competitors and no one in the woke sports world seems to mind that. It does make you think.
I heard a story about a trans racing and literally stopped and waited for his competition (the women) to catch up to him - he was so far ahead - and ultimately won by over five minutes while he sat and ate a sandwich waiting for them to come in. He now has first place of the…
— JoanOfArc (@JoanOfArc287) June 13, 2023
A fair and honest assessment, indeed. The University of Miami is getting tons of free marketing out of the twins' meteoric rise to success. No one can argue that point.
Humans. Go figure.
— 2late2stop (@HearItDotCom) June 13, 2023
“Life’s not fair” was such a simple thing. Wonder where we lost our ability to understand that. https://t.co/Mm9pdtxzoS
— EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) June 13, 2023
People have been the same since the people started. Audiences like looking at beauty. It is the way of the world.
Name, Image and Likeness.
— NERC Compliance (@ReliabilityComp) June 13, 2023
Name can be for being great player.
The other two? Hot girls win. Open Market. They need the money more as their career is over after college.
Another good take! If the player is just attractive, but mediocre, their career will be over after college. There is no "pretty good" lane for any athlete after college. Only the best of the best will go on to professional careers. The 'good looking but second string players' have to earn their 'hot girl' money in college because after that, all they have are stories of the glory days.
allowing student athletes to make money will be a disaster. Bad decision
— retired@40 (@joker101abc) June 13, 2023
The NCAA opened this door.
— GravityIsHeavyToday🏋🏻 (@MsN_JESSE) June 13, 2023
To many, ever allowing athletes in college to make money was a big mistake and we are just beginning to see the terrible after effects.
The NCAA is just mad that certain athletes have taken full advantage of NIL deals and that they can't have any of the money the athletes make.
— A Hairy Ape (@WashedLifestyle) June 13, 2023
It's not their fault the twins know how to market themselves
and fwiw, they were good enough to go D1...
One tweep wrapped the argument up and topped it with a nice bow. The NCAA allowed this and these talented women are just using the rules to their advantage. At the end of the day, they made it to a D1 College team and they deserve all the accolades for that feat.
NCAA: We have a branding problem. Our brand ambassadors are popular and good-looking. https://t.co/pTytCKvYpl
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) June 13, 2023
Let's be real. This "problem" seems like not much of a problem. If this is all the NCAA has to worry about, they must not have many worries.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member