federal laws will play into the equation. There are plenty of examples on how the courts have ruled in cases involving the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX. Plus, the courts ruling on players being paid involved payments from external sources and directly from the schools. So you can't assume the courts will take the same approach if there ever comes a day when the schools are directly paying these athletes. As I have noted in other posts as long as the academic side receives federal funding and the athletic side remains connected to the academic side, then the government has a vested interest in ensuring the schools comply with Title IX requirements in athletics. That means if VT wants to pay every football player a salary of $100,000, then it will have to provide that same benefit to every other athlete, male or female, because of Title IX and likely the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There are probably some other federal laws that would have a say in the matter that I am not thinking of off the top of my head. You may not agree with it or even like it, but federal law will always trump what the schools or the NCAA desire to do regarding this topic. This reality is what may prevent the schools from directly paying the athletes at some point in the future. If they do decide to pay them, then it will be at a lower salary regardless of what you believe is a player's "fair market value." Always remember a person's "fair market value" is only established when both parties agree on a value. You may think your fair market value is worth $100 million dollars. However, if the highest salary any potential employer is willing to offer you is $10,000 and you sign the contract, then guess what your "fair market value" is only worth $10,000. The other factor which can help determine a player's "fair market value" is whether the schools and the players' union agreed on a salary cap for each sport or the entire athletic department.