Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="huskymedic, post: 3271207, member: 549"] Interesting comments by the USCe AD: [URL unfurl="true"]https://southcarolina.rivals.com/news/tanner-weighs-in-on-california-bill-on-player-likeness?utm_content=bufferbd95c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer[/URL] >>“I think we’re in a really good place. We do cost of attendance now and provide all kinds of services,” he said. “I probably shouldn’t do my editorial, but I don’t see how it could ever work. We have 21 sports and for all intents and purposes, football pays the freight for the other 20. If we’re going in that direction, however it may be set up, it’s going to affect financially in a big way.” Tanner continued saying he’s worried if South Carolina’s bill passes the Gamecock athletic department couldn’t be as profitable as it is currently. According to USA Today’s annual piece, South Carolina had revenue just over $140 million with a profit of just over $5 million. “Those institutions like ours that are self-supporting will no longer be self supporting. You’d have to get rid of a lot of sports,” Tanner said. “Would our donors continue to give to our programs or will they give to student-athletes? Where would the sponsorships go? Would they go to student athletes or would they stay within the athletics departments.”<< [/QUOTE]