the incident away for over 100 years had an amateurism model and under that amateurism model, although it's evolved over time, the current definition of amateurism is that college athletes cannot be paid based on their athletic ability unrelated to education, so they can receive athletic scholarships. But they can't receive any money. On top of that, they can't be paid to play. They can't be paid to come to a school. They can't be paid to do an endorsement deal. Those rules might change a little bit, but right now that's the system. Really shockingly low graduation rates, only a tiny percentage ever go on to make any money in professional sports. So the argument is they are recruited, they're used up, and then they're cast aside. But just look at this year in the middle of a pandemic. While many college students were taking classes remotely and we're not back on campus at FBS and Division One basketball, they were back and playing and traveling across the country. And so there are health and safety risks. There is the potential lack of education. There is also the exploitation angle that they are generating money but not getting a piece of it. So you put all of that together. And the court wondered whether amateurism was really just serving as a cover for the exploitation of these athletes and whether this model that may have made sense in the early 19 hundreds, when there weren't these massive television vehicles and massive coaching salaries. Whether that model makes sense today, when we're seeing billion dollar television, the $6000 a year amounts to $735 million per year that schools have to come up with in addition to the the retrospective Trouble Damages Awards. So the argument instantly makes a lot of these cases is that if they were required to pay or allowed to pay college football and basketball players, that that would detract from the overall educational mission, it would lead to a race to the bottom in terms of competition for these athletes. And it would also harm college athletics as a whole and that what many universities pride themselves on is what they call broad based opportunities. It's not just about college football basketball. It's also about the Olympic sports, the swimming and diving and tennis and golf from across the sports that don't generate significant amounts of revenue and lose money for the school. And the thought is that the revenue generated by football and basketball is needed to subsidize those sports. So we'll know more in a couple of months whether this is the more of the same for the answer to play, that they'll be able to maintain the status quo more or less, or whether this is the beginning of the end of amateurism restrictions as we know it and that maybe in 2345 years, we'll look back and say, I cannot believe this college basketball players used to play for free and that their payment will be in part because of the outcome in this case.