ALBIN’S ANGLE

Paying for playing 1&AA Jives in to pressure froP states to let athletes PaNe proƓ ts

Nate Albin albinnat000@hsestudents.org

From sports shows like “First Take” to classrooms everywhere, debates over paying athletes have only grown since NCAA conferences signed multi-billion contracts with TV networks like ESPN and Fox. This debate reached into legislatures lately. After California state senator Nancy Skinner drafted the new Fair Pay to Play act to stop the NCAA’s “exploitation” of college athletes. It was set to begin in 2023, but the NCAA passed a similar rule starting in 2021. The current rule has caused confusion. One thing must be known: the universities are not paying the students. Since the beginnings of college athletics, the NCAA works to keep sports fair, and they have always made sure to keep the money out of the games. Fair Pay to Play would allow royalties to go to both school and the individual athletes. For example, say I want to buy the basketball jersey for Purdue University center Matt Haarms. Without the legislation, there are two possibilities: one, the school does not produce a jersey of the individual for sale, or two, the school will sell the jersey, but the player does not get any revenue from it. With the new bill, Haarms would get a cut of the sale because Purdue sold something with his likeness. The idea of athlete likenesses has coUe under fi re before. In addition to the jersey issues, the popular NCAA video games made by EA Sports were discontinued after 2013 after the company was sued for their use of player likenesses. Famously, “Florida QB #15” was modeled after all-time great NCAA football player Tim Tebow. This was one of many blatant examples of using player likenesses that happened every year with each game. While many still oppose the idea of college athletes getting money, no one should be against the proposed new system. If a student artist created a masterpiece painting, then they would be able to Uake Uoney off of their painting and their likeness. For a college athlete, they would get half of that: the likeness. Forbes wrote that athletes are currently getting

paid up to $125,000 in the form of scholarships and that is payment enough. An easy counter to this is that other students get scholarships from their art, their music, their work in school, so sports should be viewed equally to those other categories. An argument against the change is that college athletes would make absurd amounts of money. This simply would not happen for the majority. ESPN said that most athletes would use this so that they could, for example, teach lessons to kids in the sports they play or sign a couple of autographs. Maybe a few superstars like former Duke basketball player Zion Williamson or Clemson’s Trevor Lawrence would make a substantial amount, as seen from sales of nonNCAA licensed apparel, but not many at all. There are worries over schools potentially paying the athletes to come play for them. Investigations as to whether or not companies like Nike and Adidas paid the families of athletes to go to specifi c schools has Uade this _orse. )ll the 6+)) needs to do to fi ` this is to have better control of the schools it oversees. Schools would rake in the cash from marketing opportunities such as video games that have to pay just to put the logo somewhere. Schools could sell jerseys of players, they could make more money based off people that _ill buy Uore Rerseys so they can represent all their favorite players. These are opportunities for money that these schools do not have right now. The NCAA’s vote for all athletes to be able to profi t off of their likenesses is soUething high school athletes will need to be mindful of. Athletes Uay have to decide _here to go based off fi nancial opportunity. This was a long time coming. It will be interesting to watch this system going forward and what changes it may need. While this system may not be perfect, it should defi nitely be _orth giving the old college try. Purdue center Matt Haarms follows media obligations after a 99-94 win over Tennessee in the 2019 NCAA Tournament. With the new rules, Haarms would be able to make money from things such as jersey sales or being in video games. Photo used with permission of The Journal Gazette.

Impeachment needed to enforce law Trump must be subject to laws that rule country, to moral expectations of Americans

Benjamin Grantonic grantben000@hsestudents.org

On Oct. 31, the House held a vote, 232-196 in favor of proceeding with an impeachment inquiry into President Donald J. Trump. This comes after the President attempted to solicit info on Hunter Biden from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, causing calls for impeachment to increase among the American public.

With the situation involving Ukraine, it could be interpreted that Trump violated Article 1, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution, stating “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: )nd no 8erson holding any 7ffi ce of 8rofi t or Trust under theU, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, -UoluUent, 7ffi ce, or Title, of any kind _hatever, froU any 3ing, Prince or foreign State.”

Most important is the section referring to accepting an “emolument,” which is a type of bribe or favor gained from a position or political offi ce, especially froU a foreign nation. 1t could be seen that Trump, attempting to get info on Hunter Biden from the Ukrainian President, attempted to receive emolument.

Attempting to get a foreign power involved in American politics, such as with the Ukraine phone call, could impact our free and fair elections. This disregard of our democracy and our American way of doing things by Trump has also appeared during the Turkish invasion of Syria.

?ith the betrayal of one of our closest allies, the 3urds, by letting Turkey invade the 3urdishheld territory of 6orthern ;yria. This choice will permanently make the USA a far less desirable ally. ?hile this is not an iUpeachable off ense, this sho_s his _illingness to betray for personal profi t. )lso, _hile not having defi nitive proof, the Trump Organization owns property in Turkey, and staying on Turkey’s good side _ould be benefi cial for TruUp’s personal business.

Trump has also taken away White House press passes, and while he gave them back to most of the reporters who appealed the choice, some reporters were not given them back after repealing. Some reporters, notably Dana Milbank a reporter for the Washington Post who wrote on the topic, claimed this was due to their critiYues of the adUinistration. 1f these claiUs are true, this would be an obvious violation of the First Amendment, more specifi cally freedoU of the press.

1t could also be argued TruUp broke the principal of ¹The Common Good,” the ethical idea that politicians should work for the good of the people and not for themselves. When Trump made the choice to pull out of Turkey, it was against the common good for the )Uerican and 3urdish people. The choice could have only could have benefi ted TruUp and Turkey. )nother e`aUple of this is the trade war with China, which has negatively impacted American agriculture and industry.

These amount to Trump disregarding the will of the American people and publicly violating the +onstitution. This Rustifi es his impeachment.

“I think impeachment is warranted because there is evidence he tried to bribe Ukraine.”

“From a moral standpoint, Trumpʼs ethical shortcomings are worthy of nothing less than impeachment.”

-Ally Musgrave, 9 -Annalise Janke, 12

Greater issues at hand than impeachment Playing the short term with politics will end up hurting the country long run

Carter Hanefeld hanefcar000@hsestudents.org

“Concerning Ukraine, there is no evidence to back up the fact that there was wrong doing.”

-Mitchell Gieting, 10 “I disagree with it because the Democrats jumped to impeachment with no base of evidence.”

Impeachment has long been a topic in the Democratic Party. Back in , the eff ort _as Uostly laughed at by high profi le ,eUocratic offi cials. 0o_ever, that _as then, and this is no_. The actual iUpeachUent inYuiry is under_ay, 1 do not support the iUpeachUent eff ort for t_o reasons" it distracts froU issues that actually aff ect )Uericans and a 5ike 8ence presidency is Uuch Uore threatening. .irst, iUpeachUent distracts froU the issues that actually aff ect )Uericans. 1n , one of the biggest reasons TruUp _on the election _as his taking of 8ennsylvania, ?isconsin, and 5ichigan, states traditionally considered a ¹blue fi re_all,º states that Uany thought _ould surely go to 0illary +linton. 1f ,eUocrats _ant to _in vital states such as the forUer three, then the key issue to discuss is not iUpeachUent, but the Uain thing these states have in coUUon" Uanufacturing.

.or the fi rst tiUe in three years, the 1nstitute for ;upply 5anageUent inde`, _hich Ueasures national production levels Uonth to Uonth, found that the industry has seen a decline across the board, froU production to eUployUent. ?hen asked by 68: to elaborate on the inde`’s readings, 1;5’s TiU .iore, _ho coUpiled the inde`, said that, for the Uanufacturing industry, ¹trade reUains the Uost signifi cant issue.º This Ueans that, because of the trade _ar enacted by 8resident TruUp, this _ill negatively iUpact 8ennsylvania, ?isconsin, and 5ichigan.

)ccording to 1ndustry ?eek, ?isconsin is ranked nuUber eight in states _ith Uanufacturing Robs, 5ichigan nuUber si`, and 8ennsylvania nuUber four. 1f ,eUocrats _ant to increase their chances of _inning in the  election, they should be talking about and running on the issues, such as Uanufacturing, that iUpact everyday )Uericans, especially the ones in states that they cannot aff ord to lose. 1f ,eUocrats do lose, then a 8resident 8ence _ould likely be far Uore troublesoUe for ,eUocrats than 8resident TruUp.

:eal+lear8olitics found that in the aggregate, 8ence _as rated far less unfavorably than ,onald TruUp,  to . respectively as of 7ct. . ?hile this poll _as conducted aUong the )Uerican populace, this favorability rating is coUparable aUong senators and congresspeople in our governUent.

.or instance, take ;en. 2eff .lake )B, _ho despite being one of the fi rst /78 UeUbers to break a_ay froU TruUp, voted in line _ith the president’s platforU ! of the tiUe, according to .iveThirty-ight. 1f a 8resident 8ence _ere in offi ce, the coUfortability of a ¹typical politicianº _ould likely bring Uany ¹disgruntledº right leaning politicians back into the fold, and put in place Uany of the saUe Uisguided legislation that _e have seen froU Uore recent adUinistrations, such as increasing our already Uassive Uilitary budget, or cutting ta`es for the _ealthy.

,oes Uy opponent have a valid arguUent' )bsolutely. 0o_ever, if the ,eUocratic 8arty as a _hole _ishes to pursue this _hite _hale, and they succeed, _e Uight be facing the one thing _orse than the evil _e kno_" the evil _e do not.