Originally Posted by Kaiser Toro
One is a professional, the other is an amateur that is subsidized strongly towards education.
Based on top line growth, consistent investment, popularity of the sport and a constant funnel of talent I am not sure how anyone can say the system is broken.
The system is broken. The "professional" should be more restricted than the non. The professional can recruit kids in and leave before those kids ever get to work with what they were promised.
Also of the subsidy what percentage of the choice of who to give it to is based on athletic ability vs education ?