For the Love of Ed O'bannon...

As we are all filling out our NCAA Basketball Tournament Brackets amidst all the marketing and promotion of DraftKings, FanDuel, and Kalshi Prediction markets, I have to wonder:
​
In this new modern age of NIL and the transfer portal, and player empowerment, do NCAA players get a cut of all of the money that is now being legally bet on them?

I mean surely having a prop bet on a player constitutes the “Name” in NIL. I mean wasn’t that the spirit of the antitrust lawsuit? The NCAA, its member schools, and all of its corporate sponsors are making billions off of these young athletes and those athletes  are entitled to seek reasonable compensation. From a free market standpoint  shouldn’t the players get a piece of the action of every bet being made on them?  I mean when sports betting is illegal it’s not even  a valid  question. But sports betting has been legalized and expanded rather quickly and I believe this has lead to a colossal oversight, due to people on all sides ignoring the issue because so much potential money was at stake. So I would argue that any legal sports betting on college sports is violating antitrust law, and cite the NIL decision as precedent. 

You could never  sell a T-shirt with a schools name on it without the proper licensing rights. And now thanks to the  NIL ruling, you can’t use an athlete's Name, Image or Likeness on that  T-shirt either without entering into a contract with that athlete.
So why can sports books take bets on stats and performance of a named player at any time?
Even if the sports book doesn’t name the player in its offer, the better is naming the player in their bet and the sports book is taking money on that player.
Shouldn't the player be entitled to money made off of their name being used to entice the bet?
Has this been challenged legally or is no one wanting to be the guy that stops the sports betting gravy train? 


You can argue that at the professional level the players Union gets to negotiate the rights to the NIL of their member athletes for all the video games and officially licensed products of the respective professional leagues, which might theoretically include sports betting.  But college athletes have no collective bargaining. Did the NCAA and its member schools really sell out all of its athletes to sports betting in the fine print of its promotional relationships with these sports book companies?

Legall means you are doing things with the promper permissions. Just like when states legalize mariajuana that means businesses that deal in marijuana have to obtain the proper permits, registration, etc, and have to obtain their product from appraoved sources. The same with a liquor license, or firearms sales. None of these  legal businesses get to sell weed from their basement,  moonshine from their bathtub, or pistols they traded car stereo parts for off the coast of Nicaragua. 
Why do sports books have access to take bets on athletes that have not consented through contractual negotiations?

Don't hollywood Studios have to get the rights to books inorder to make movies of them? hell, don't I technically need permission from the photographer beofre I post a picture to this blog?. And technically shoudln't that  photographer have obtained consent from the subject before taking the picture?
In any other context legalizing something means you have to obtain proper rights and permissions to the product in question. Why is sports  gambling any different?

Do sports betting companies have some kind of “public domain” analogous to the parody standard that allows Saturday Night Live to imitate and make fun of any Public Figure?

I don’t know the answer to all of these questions. Regardless of the answers, to me it just makes sense that legal sports books should have to have to obtain the  rights to the things they take wagers on, especially athletes. And that means giving athletes a piece of all the action wagered on them. Doing so promotes the integrty of all parties involved.

If college and professional athletes make money off of every bet made for or against them, they are much less incentivized to throw games or leak information.
Why risk a consistent check for a onetime pay day and then be banned? If you think about it, letting the sports books pay the players, would have been part of a good global solution to the NIL debacle that Nick Saban was just talking to the president about a few weeks ago.
But I bet any  forthcoming executive order says nothing about sports books having to license the right to take bets on individual players when it is being written by a Casino owner.