https://www.thefp.com/p/the-ncaa-and-the-cavender-twins
I saw an interesting article yesterday about the NCAA and the new world where NIL is a thing. It seems that the problem is that some of the highest earners in NIL money just coincidentally happen to be attractive, blonde, female athletes who have developed massive social media followings and who are getting attention for their looks, rather than their athletic prowess. The examples they used are the Cavender twins who were average basketball players, and Olivia Dunne who is an average to slightly above average gymnast. The problem that the NCAA seems to have is that the unregulated NIL marketplace has allowed certain female athletes to cash in on their looks, not their skill. Now, for those who value the free market this doesn't seem to be a huge surprise. "Hot girls" cashing in on their "hotness" is a big market right now. I suspect that it won't be long before this phenomenon is classified as somethingism. Someone'll make a big stink because XYZ black athlete or ABC unattractive athlete doesn't make as much in NIL money as Dunne. This will likely lead to the those who are high earners being forced to contribute a portion of their earnings to those who aren't as lucky.
IMO, the problem ins't so much a "hot girl" problem as it is an "NCAA dropping the ball" problem. But hey, that's just me.
3 comments:
It would be a bad thing if hot chicks were denied, or from them was demanded compensation for the less than hot. Throughout all of human history, standards of attractiveness have benefited those who fall within those standards. It's a sad reality, but it isn't a real problem except in the hearts and minds of those who put themselves at a disadvantage by putting looks above ability.
Take film. No one wants to spend money seeing two ugly people getting naked on the big screen. Those who are not considered "hot" by the standards of the day are at a disadvantage. A bigger problem is in the less than hot denying themselves other opportunities open to them for want of superficial attention.
In professional sports, we've often seen retired athletes make a second career in Hollywood. Their looks make it easier. That's just the way it is.
Art,
I agree that people who are considered attractive or hot do have certain built in advantages in many facets of life. I don't even begrudge these women from using their looks to make millions. The problem will eventually be those who are upset that Dunne and others are getting rich off of NIL, while those who aren't "hot" (The subtext definitely implies that there is a racial component as well) are denied the big money. The real problem is the NCAA has screwed this up just like so many other things.
I'd argue that the success of pro athletes in Hollywood is more about name recognition than anything else. Neither of the Mannings are particularly "hot", but everyone knows who they are.
Being attractive doesn't hurt, but it's not everything.
I also think that problem is that most of these terms (hot, attractive, etc) are somewhat subjective which makes it hard to generalize.
The entire subject is a matter of subjective opinion. But for too many, subjective opinion doesn't work in their favor regarding their looks. It really doesn't matter who the favored is or what she/he looks like to most others. Some traits of attractiveness go out of style. Look at babes from the movies of the 1920's and 30's and see how what was attractive then changed through the years. Certain facial features continued to be regarded as beautiful, but body types of one kind were favored more so in the past than they are more currently.
In many cases, looks takes priority over talent. In other cases, not so much. I've never been a fan of Meryl Streep's looks, but she's a really good actress. I'd say the same for Katherine Hepburn. Raquel Welch is far more smokin', and while she's not a bad actress, her looks got her lots of gigs she wouldn't have gotten on talent alone.
Men aren't judged in quite the same way, but they aren't judged superficially in the same way, either. Look at how many leading man roles Bing Crosby got!! The guy's a geek and his build is the least intimidating in Hollywood history! There was a remake of "The Philadelphia Story" which highlights the subjectivity issue rather well. I love the movie, but the remake I can't bring myself to sit through. Cary Grant was the lead male in the movie and his role went to Bing Crosby in the remake, called "High Society". Hepburn was the society chick, but in the remake, it was the far, far hotter Grace Kelly, who simply isn't as good an actress as Hepburn. (I've only seen a snippet of High Society, and was immediately put off by the low quality of acting I witnessed in that brief span of time. And for Frank Sinatra to take over the Jimmy Stewart role...well...it just wasn't clicking)
Back to the topic: It's clear that the best move of the NCAA is to step away and pretend it took no position on the good fortunes of the babes. It won't work.
Post a Comment