Contra The Free Press, the NCAA Does Not Have a 'Hot Girl' Problem
In today’s piece at The Free Press by Ethan Strauss, we learn of the purported unfairness presented by the fact that an attractive set of twins has been able to cash in as college athletes despite being only above average basketball players, while other much better women’s basketball players are not compensated nearly as much.
This, of course, aligns with the sentiments we have all heard a million times in our life that, “it’s not fair that (favored profession) only makes $ x per year, while (disfavored profession) makes $ y per year.” Criticizing how much money someone makes should be reserved to cases where someone is making money through force or fraud. That’s it. For every other circumstance, grow up! There is no cosmic ordering of how much people should get paid. Even if there were, it wouldn’t be “fair” because people’s talents, work ethic, support network, physical health, etc., etc., etc. is not the same.
The opportunities and whatever success I have had in my career have been largely due to the fact that I have mathematical ability within the top 1% of people. That is almost entirely God given. I always was drawn and enjoyed math, but I truly never had to work very hard at it until grad school. I am quite certain that my income over my career has been higher than someone of equal ability in poetry. Is that fair? I don’t know. What does fair even mean in this context? Someone in the top 1% of the finance world definitely makes more money than I do. As my (and certainly millions of other parents) used to tell their kids, “Life isn’t fair”.
Back to the article. Ability to play college level basketball is surely a mix of natural athletic ability & working hard at your sport (among other things). Similarly, looking really attractive is a mix of nature and “working hard” (nutrition, working out, learning about fashion, etc.). Why would compensating one of these be noble, while the other is a “problem”. The only reason anyone can expect to compensation to play basketball in the 1st place is because other people value the entertainment of it. Entertainment can include both their basketball playing ability as well as their physical attractiveness. Who is anyone to say that is “wrong”? This is even more true in this case as college athletes are technically not getting paid for their sport, but rather for using their “image and likeness”, i.e. for endorsing products, etc.
And not for nothing, I have some news for you, physical attractiveness also impacts the marketing potential and therefore earnings potential of male basketball players as well:
Source: Hoops Hype
The Twins need to cash in from "women's " basketball now, because that side of the sport is about to be dominated by dudes, too.
Will the twins receive more mainstream hate for being blonde, rich and famous or will they receive more backlash for their pronouncement of being Christian? I guess that’s a trick question (such as which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead). The hate will be equal.