NCAA president Mark Emmert took the stand in Oakland on Thursday to testify in the Ed O'Bannon antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA.
The biggest takeaway from his testimony was that Emmert supports a plan that would allow the five largest conferences to give athletes additional money to cover school costs, but he warned that a line would need to be drawn so that students aren't being paid beyond that.
In short, he sees a difference between giving student-athletes additional money and giving them a "pay for play" salary.
"You've moved into realm where you're compensating student-athletes for something other than the legitimate cost of being a student," Emmert said, via the Associated Press. "You've now moved into pay for play."
He also argued that paying student-athletes could kill some of the draw of the game, because, "These individuals are not professionals ... people come to watch sports because it's college sports with college athletes."
In other words, the student body identifies with and is attached to players and teams because they are peers, not because they are paid to represent the school:
It's one of the most fundamental principles of the NCAA and intercollegiate athletics. They have always seen and assumed that intercollegiate athletics is about the notion that these are members of the student body. They're not hired employees conducting games for entertainment. They're not a random group of folks that just come together to play sports.
The only part of the testimony that could really be called into question is Emmert's claims that schools perhaps "wouldn't want to be a part of a championship that is driven by" paying players.
The line of questioning was said to be friendly rather than adversarial, though O'Bannon sat a few feet away at the plaintiff's table.