Rob commented about the second possibility: "Well presumably that's the point: if they were treated as employees under FLSA, they'd have to be paid. I imagine FLSA was chosen specifically so they'd have to be paid hourly, as opposed to assume profit-sharing mechanism."
Okay. I admit I know nothing about sports. Does that mean that they are already sharing profits? Or is that just a possibility, an alternative to a salary? I still have to admit, in either case, it's not terribly interesting compared to the issues of free speech that NSDA could be addressing with a better version of the first rez. This article, by the way, is a good analysis of the free speech problem overall: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/flip-flopping-on-free-speech
In other words, I guess I think that understanding freedom of speech, and arguing about it, is a way better use of high school brains than the issue of paying a handful of athletes. These kids are heading to college soon. What are they going to see there? What are they going to learn there?
What are they going to think there?