I don’t care. I’m just glad they’re getting paid. Meanwhile, your obsession with Dunne is strange.
Touch grass, dude.
OT: Is NIL demeaning to women???
- Thread starter recruitsreadtheseboards
- Start date
Touch grass, dude.
You misunderstood the intent of NIL.
NIL stands for Name; Image; Likeness.
She is doing exactly what the intent of the law is. Just because she wears clothing that you don’t think she should has nothing to do with it. She is popular. Her exposure in her sport made her popular. She chooses what image and likeness she “exposes” to the public to maximize her earnings, and NIL allows her to do so.
She is not being paid for her athletic ability, and that was never the intent of the law.
There are other female athletes who have gained popularity and are being more modest in the image they make available. Their choice.
You’re confusing her situation with say, Jordan Addison. He got paid for his athletic talents; which is illegal.
Got it?
That's a really weird way to term it and pretty demeaning. In fact, I wouldn't describe her social media in that way at all.
How many times do I have to say the same thing?
The intent of NIL is for players to use their "brand," so to speak, to profit off their name, image, or likeness. Olivia Dunne's brand has absolutely NOTHING to do with athletics. She is a model who plays sports when she isnt busy posing barely clothed. It would be like if Pitt had some 4th string QB who was some famous male IG model posting almost nude photos all the time but making millions. All of this is fine and legal. Nobody says they shouldn't do this. But the point of my posts is that these girls are making money SOLELY due to selling skin. The fact they play a sport is meaningless. Their brand was created by selling skin. Again, for the millionth time. That's FINE but lets not pretend this is some great victory for women's athletics. Making money for taking your clothes off isn't exactly something that youth and HS coaches should encourage their young players to do. "OK team listen, if you work really hard and earn a D1 scholarship and are very very attractive, you can make millions if you post almost nude photos on IG. And you dont really have to be that good at your sport. Just get those pictures going." Is that the message?
I think this is a good time for you to “let it go”.
She’s making money by taking advantage of the popularity her sport has given her, as the NIL law intended.
You are the one making the claim that NIL was a great victory for women’s athletics. Everyone else saw NIL as a vehicle for athletes (male or female) to take advantage of the popularity they gained as they see fit. And remain eligible to participate in the college sport of their choice.
I’m beginning to think you’re obtuse, and because you misunderstand NIL, you think everyone else does, too.
WHAT???? You cant be serious. Her being a D1 gymnast has almost nothing to do with her popularity. Instagram is littered with girls her age making 6 figures for posting racy photos. Probably less than 1% play a D1 sport. She did not "take advantage of the popularity her sport has given her." That’s 1 million percent false. The fact that she is a D1 gymnast is just a side note in her "modeling business." It was never going to have any bearing on her ability to make money selling her skin.
That settles it. You are obtuse.
So what if she’s making money off of, as you say, racy photos? Who, other than you, cares? She wouldn’t have been able to make that money before NIL, and retain her college eligibility. Now, she can. That’s all that NIL was intended to do.
You are very confused about NIL.
Again. Your obsession with what a young woman chooses to post on instagram is disturbing.
And she is 100% able to leverage her participation in a D1 sport for more views, followers, and income. That you don’t see that is comical.
Again. Touch grass my man.
I think you are missing an important issue. Men and women can earn money, the difference is, women have to do it differently. Nobody cares about gymnastics, and nobody can name 10 college gymnasts, and mostly likely not even 1. Female sports isn’t marketable based on athletics. Females have to bring sex appeal through fashion and skin.it’s an unfair balance for NIL, and the women are resorting to skin for money, the male players don’t have to do that.
The hideous woman who raised the complaint obviously cares. Personal jealousy over the girl’s looks, plus the professional scorn that nobody cares enough about the actual sport to make it lucrative for the athletes by itself.
So I wonder what this woman thinks should be done about it? I’m sure she isn’t willing to merely accept it for what it is or she wouldn’t have aired her gripe in public. There’s already Title IX forcing equal numbers of scholarships. But this is a different side of the animal. I’m guessing she’d advocate (more) government action…force companies that pay big Nil money to male football players to pay the exact same to female gymnasts? Force the networks to show as much of these sports in prime time as they do the ones that bring in revenue?
It's only "unfair" in the sense that all of life is "unfair". The star baseball player doesn't make as much from NIL as the star quarterback does. The star track athlete doesn't make as much from NIL as the star basketball player does. Is that "fair"?
Some things and some people are more popular than others. It's always been that way, and it always will be that way. To paraphrase the famous William Money, fair's got nothing to do with it.
Not sure she's saying anyone should do anything about it as much as she's asking women in other sports to quit profiting off of what she perceives to be "the wrong way" to do it. It's a bit of hyperbole to invoke Title IX.
At the end of the day, these women might be using their position as athletes to bolster their value as a commodity that a business wants to invest in. Adidas has certainly done well with the social media influence of some female athletes. Whether they are marketable outside of athletics or not is besides the point. No different than a bunch of frat boys kicking each other in the balls for laughs and getting a sponsorship. If people want to pay for it, someone will show up to take their money.
I realize it's unfair, but there's nothing that going to change that. It's unfortunate that woman's sports aren't as popular as men's sports, but that's not going to change anytime soon.
What is fair is that the student athletes are now available to receive income based on their name, image, and likeness, and retain their college eligibility.
As Joe pointed out above, there are a lot of unequal payments available to men, too.
The "fairness" is that all student athletes are able to receive their market value in NIL payments and still retain their eligibility, not that they 3Rd string punter or woman's softball player has to receive what the market is willing to give the starting QB.
Last edited:
I think it goes beyond this as well. Former UCF kicker Donald De La Haye had to choose between football and YouTube. He chose YouTube and it seems to have paid off as he nearly has 5 million subscribers. I don't know if he ever went back to college or got his scholarship back, but with all the forms of social media, there are multiple avenues for college athletes to profit outside of their NIL strictly from the sport. Outside of a Livvy commercial, I can't say I've ever seen a national TV commercial or advertising campaign (not IG or Tiktok) of a college athlete selling a product.
Of course it's a form of NIL now, but I would assume most in this area would be making money outside of their sport.
Who is advertising for Dr. Pepper?
Bryce Young adds Dr. Pepper NIL deal, featured in hilarious commercial
Bryce Young strikes NIL gold again with Dr. Pepper
rolltidewire.usatoday.com
Here's one:
Yes, and the female athletes wearing bikinis and lingerie clearly making more money because of creepy old men. Will you admit the unfair issue here is due to skin versus no skin and females having to resort to a different approach than the males?
That's not true at all.
There may not be an NIL market value for a lot of women athletes, but fairness is that every student athlete gets to try.
There may be zero NIL opportunities for a woman swimmer, and there may be zero NIL opportunities for the backup long snapper. That doesn't make it unfair.
Is it unfair that the walk on LB at LSU doesn't get the same NIL oopportunities the gymnast in question does because he doesn't look good in extra small shorts?
Fairness and everybody getting an equal amount are two very different things.
Is it fair that the starting center can't throw the frozen 35 yard out that it takes to be the starting QB?
Is it fair that another gymnast at LSU doesn't get the same opportunities as Olivia Dunne?
Fair is not losing eligibility to get whatever NIL money is available for that individual.
That's where fairness ends.
I think injecting "how" someone profits from their NIL misses the point and that's why I think the basketball coach is kind of wrong to go after a reason. I mean, Tim Tebow had very little athletic worth beyond college and yet he managed to reap rewards after he failed because he branded himself a certain way. By your approximation, that's not fair either.
I think it's also correct to point out that creepy dudes are going to do creepy dude things regardless of if she gets paid for it so she might as well cash in on it.
I have a feeling many of you don’t have daughters in their teens or older. You quickly change your tune on things like this when you have daughters. I’m all for them making money, but having to shed clothing to compete with males is problematic.
Especially when the majority of the creeps are fantasizing that she’s a 12 year old.
I do. And I accept the fact she will make no NIL as a D1 athlete in her sport (lacrosse). And that’s fine. They don’t have to take off their clothes. Accept reality. How do you think showing skin is competing with men? Few if any female athletes can compete with men in the monetary sense based upon their sport. Just not enough interest in female sports. So they resort to what has worked since time 0, sex appeal.
Dumb question in todays world but what happened to being happy playing because you enjoy the sport and it opens academic avenues that might not otherwise been available? This whole thread is hilarious.
I recognize that this is an emotional topic for you, and I applaud your daughter for having integrity. I really do. She sounds like she makes good decisions, and you should be proud, as I’m sure you are.
But, I think taking emotion out of it, accindc summed it up well.
I guess it depends on what you consider "fair". If your notion of "fairness" is equality of OUTCOMES then yeah, sure, I can see how you think this is "unfair". If your notion of "fairness" is equality of OPPORTUNITY then there is no issue here at all. The women and the men have the same opportunities. Different people choose to use those opportunities in different ways. Some people choose to chase every dollar out there, no matter what that means. Other people basically choose not to participate at all. As long as it remains the choice of the athletes (and not the schools or the NCAA) then to me that is "fair".
Well I have both a daughter and a granddaughter, and I'm also one of the few people here who pays money on a regular basis to attend women's sports (I have been a Pitt women's basketball season ticket holder for more than a decade, for example). And the problem isn't that they are required to shed clothing, because they most certainly are not and in fact very few of them actually do. The problem that you have comes down to the fact that women's sports just isn't nearly as popular as men's sports. And isn't likely to be in any of our lifetimes.
I have no idea why this concept is so difficult for some of you to understand. I will try to say this real slow for the 10th time.
1. What she is doing is FINE
2. It isn't great for women's sports or female athletes and borderline demeaning to women that these girls have to take their clothes off to make big NIL dollars.
3. Again, what she is doing is fine, legal, etc, etc, etc, etc but Tara Van Der Veer wasnt wrong.
Van der Veer wishes we lived in a completely different world than the one that we actually live in. She's not wrong for wishing for her idea of utopia, but in the real world things are different than the way that she wishes they are.
Women have been using NIL for thousands of years. They have no problem using their looks to get ahead, manipulate men, and cash in. Fashion models and actresses are the ultimate N.I.L.s along with trophy wives/gold diggers.
Why are females angry at men who can cash in on their physical abilities? They (women) do it all the time. There's no difference, except those manipulating the debate to feign victimhood while using all their assets to get ahead and succeed as women, however they can, are jealous they can't cash in in this sub-segment of the NIL industry they dominate and practically own.
They see no problem when THEY cash in. How many sideline reporters are eye candy that you can tell are reading off a teleprompter/ note cards and have no idea what they're reading? They didn't get there on their sports iq. Sorry, they didn't. Where are the feminists decrying the sideline reporters using her looks to get ahead? The pretty news reporter or hot weather caster? Where is their outrage for them?
Why are females angry at men who can cash in on their physical abilities? They (women) do it all the time. There's no difference, except those manipulating the debate to feign victimhood while using all their assets to get ahead and succeed as women, however they can, are jealous they can't cash in in this sub-segment of the NIL industry they dominate and practically own.
They see no problem when THEY cash in. How many sideline reporters are eye candy that you can tell are reading off a teleprompter/ note cards and have no idea what they're reading? They didn't get there on their sports iq. Sorry, they didn't. Where are the feminists decrying the sideline reporters using her looks to get ahead? The pretty news reporter or hot weather caster? Where is their outrage for them?
Last edited:
That's fair. I mean this is no surprise as I posted when NIL came out that some girls would be able to make big money doing this. She wishes that female athletes would be able to make money based on their play but we live in reality. Unless you are a future WNBA star or perhaps a USWNT player, there is no market at all for female college athletes based on their athletic accomplishments. If they want to make NIL, they have to be very good looking and take their clothes off. She wasnt wrong.
The attractive ones aren’t mad about it.
The ugly ones like this coach are jealous of it. In her case, doubly jealous, both that she’s personally so ugly and that nobody cares about her sport like they do football and men’s basketball.
It’s similar to guys (like me) who get jealous that illiterate unstable morons like Antonio Brown, etc who happen to be able to throw or catch a ball well, have massive wealth, women, luxury cars, immunity to crimes, etc. Its how humans are wired.
What’s different here is guys like me just watch games and eat our hearts out … but this coach no doubt wants “The government to do something about” why people aren’t paying as much for ugly female athletes as they do to Antonio Brown.
Would you support your daughter wearing a bikini in most photos to build followers so she can make more NIL money.
Not for guys like you I guess. But I find it problematic that the top earners for women have set the standard for what it takes to earn that money. I don’t care about the equal outcomes, I’m fine with equal opportunities, it’s just that the opportunities are quite different where women resort to means that has nothing to do with their sport and more to do with skin.
Yes.
Do you live in a Cave? Any girl that has the looks to post bikini photos on social media will have them on Instagram anyway. Not sure why that would matter, if it increases her value in regards to NIL, then even better.
My god, it’s a bikini. Head out to a college bar and you will see less clothing.
But there is nothing that says that women have to avail themselves of those particular opportunities. No one is forcing anyone to post pictures of themselves in a bikini. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. They have merely been provided with an opportunity to do something that anyone else could be doing.
You say that you are in favor of equal opportunities, but then you complain when someone takes advantage of their opportunity.
This is not something new.
Have you ever heard of, “sleeping your way to the top”? Women have been doing far worse than showing skin in pictures to get ahead in business forever. A married woman who worked for the same Fortune 50 company I did, went from an hourly employee to running an operation with over 100 employees in less than three years because she was sleeping with my boss (who was also married).
There were many more qualified female employees who should have been promoted, instead of the one who did.
To be fair, there have also been women who have been held back because they’re women and women who have been objectified by men for hundreds and hundreds of years.
What I think is funny is that @Sean Miller Fan calls what Dunne is doing “soft core porn,” but if you go look at her instagram there’s nothing really any more scandalous than what college girls have been posting on their instagram or Facebook for the last 20 years.
