I think it’s hilarious how every time this type of thing comes up so many folks go out of their way to essentially absolve the student of most/all of their responsibility for participating in the fraud. The fact of the matter is that they know exactly what they are doing is fraudulent and yet they still accept the payments and gifts. They should be expelled from the schools and prosecuted if they committed a crime just like anyone else would. Particularly if they accepted any sort of federal or state assistance based on their falsely reported finances.
Should student athletes get paid to play? Maybe but it really doesn’t matter because the rules are the rules.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Even if it’s voluntary it still has to be fair, or at least that’s what’s coming under attack these days. Attorney Jeffery Kessler is preparing to argue in Federal Court that the schools’ agreement with each other to all offer the same deals is a violation of antitrust law. Heck, two donut shops in the same town can’t agree to fix the prices of their donuts or the wages for their labor, where does it say the schools get to do it?
My statement was made in context of the Title IX issues, not whether scholly athletes can earn outside income. Of course they can’t under current rules. But once those rules are removed, Title IX won’t be an impediment to football players earning greater endorsement money than field hockey players.
I don’t care if the schools decide to pay players or not. That’s a minor issue. It’s a big issue that they all agree not to, though.
Schools compete for coaches, players and supporters’ money. We shouldn’t let them have an open market for some of the components and a restricted one for others.
Sorry to everyone for not figuring out multi-quote. Maybe next time.
Universities get money from alumni. Its not like UCLA and USC compete for donors in athletics. The majority are also owned by the states. There are all kinds of hurdles here.
Perhaps you could describe one of the hurdles, besides current NCAA rules, to UCLA boosters compiling a fund to entice really good basketball players. Because none of the sports economists following this issue have mentioned any. And maybe explain why these hurdles would apply to students but not employees of the school. Schools generally take a hands off approach to students’ income.
Per NCAA rules, boosters aren’t allowed to pay players. They apply to students if the university gets federal money. Student athletesxalso have to maintain academic eligibility.
A more practical reason is that its not feasible nor affordable to pay all athletes. Most universities make little or no money. And no athlete is forced to accept a scholarship.
Sports provide benefits to athletes that can improve their lives. It requires discipline and teamwork. For the 99% that will never have an opportunity to play professionally, being an athlete gives them both tangible and intangible benefits on the workplace.
But Red asked you “Perhaps you could describe one of the hurdles, besides current NCAA rules,”.
This is ridiculous. The coach that makes $4 million a year is getting that money from somewhere, right? Where? And why can’t some of that pay the athletes? What about the hundreds of millions of dollars that the stadiums and arenas cost? I mean, those places do cost money to build right? That money came from somewhere.
How would any of those benefits be lost if the players were paid for their services? Would they no longer be athletes?
1)Those huge coach salaries are at a small number of universities and are financed by alumni grants.
2)Stadia and arenas alumni contributions. And, without them, there is no sports.
3)If we pay the big sport athletes, we have to pay all athletes. Not gonna happen. They are already paid in scholorships, room, board, books and special training facilities.
4)Athletes are not employees of the university. Were they, they would have to pay taxes on the benefits they receive. In a top notch private uni, they would be on the hook to pay taxes on benefits of around 50k. Given that almost none of them will make a penny in professional sports, this seems like a really bad idea.
This is a laundry list of bad arguments in favor of amateurism that sports economists debunked years ago.
So some schools won’t have the funds to pay players. That is no reason not to deny athletes the right to make money.
It’s just as likely that alumni will continue or even ramp up contributions to entice good players. And somehow, even without massive stadia and arenas and contributions, small schools everywhere continue to offer their students intercollegiate sports.
No you don’t. And that bears no relevance to the athletes’ rights to market themselves anyway.
The “employee” argument is one which hasn’t been made. There are also special taxation rules regarding college scholarships; they would not necessarily be taxable even if kids are working for the school. My school, for instance, has several hundred kids on the payroll while receiving partial or full rides. The real issue, again, is income athletes can generate for themselves, which are denied to them right now at the risk of their eligibility.
If this is really the case, then why not open up sports to all college students who are interested in them? They get to learn teamwork and get healthful exercise and all the rest, and don’t stress out so much about standings. This would probably also mean a lot of money leaving the arena, and what’s wrong with that?
A couple of classmates from grad school were on the school’s Ultimate Frisbee team. They got on the team by showing up and saying they wanted to play. Their team’s entire budget was the same as that of any other on-campus club, which didn’t even cover their travel expenses. They didn’t have to follow any particular regulations to maintain eligibility. And they were still students first, athletes second.
What’s wrong with this model, and why couldn’t it apply just as well to any other sport?
On topic, it wouldn’t surprise me if more stuff comes out, as rats desert the ship. Also, a lot of athletic directors my be losing their jobs as well as the coaches.
Yes you absolutely do. If you only pay the “big name” sport athletes and no one else, you’ll be preventing thousands of kids across the country from getting an education. Schools won’t be able to afford to pay athletes AND have scholarships…so guess which one will go away?
Allowing them to take outside sponsorships is a little bit better, because you’re essentially allowing the market to dictate who should get money, but that’ll get REAL ugly REAL fast.
Why in the world do you think there will still be scholarships when football and basketball players can negotiate lucrative contracts for their services? Scholarships for profitable sports will disappear because they’ll be getting paid in actual money. If I made even $100K/year as a 19 year old, I’m pretty sure I could afford the $15k tuition/year.
A school that wanted a player in a sport that wasn’t as profitable could prolly toss in a tuition fee waver in lieu of cash, but there wouldn’t be a need for it in basketball or football.
Ugly?
Please describe what you think “REAL ugly” would entail.
Because not every player will get a contract, only the top 1%, leaving the rest to falter. That’s the problem with the “pay the players!” argument, whenever anyone thinks of the players they automatically think of the best of the best. They cite the Lamar Jacksons and Lonzo Balls of the world, but they forget about everyone else. Sure, a former Heisman winner can absolutely net a pretty penny in endorsements, but will Nike be running to pay the 4th string freshman offensive lineman? What about the walk-on third-string center? Hell, what about the FIRST string offensive lineman? Not a chance.
What about the fringe sports? Do they just go away? Is college sports only going to be football and basketball? Schools aren’t going to be able to afford scholarships for smaller sports and just count on payments for the big ones. So say goodbye to no less than: Baseball, Softball, Swimming, Track, Lacrosse, Field Hockey, Soccer and Volleyball.
Also also, not all schools have five-star players and are super-competitive nationally. Players from smaller schools aren’t going to get even close to some of that endorsement money, so taking scholarships away from them means the end of sports for that entire school.
The short answer to this question is jealousy and unfair expectations. This again boils down to not everyone getting a fair shake of the money coming in. There’s jealousy and bitterness in NFL locker rooms when it comes to contracts and money, you think a bunch of kids are going to be any better? Kids who probably are only in college because of sports? Unless you have the most magnanimous QB in FBS history, the stories of the QB pulling out of his own house in his Ferrari to go to spring practice, all the while passing the 2nd string cornerback who is walking to practice because he can’t even afford a bike because HE didn’t get any money from ADIDAS.
The elitism from athletes to each other and other students is already running rampant, it’ll just get worse when money is involved.
This is the difference between intra and inter mural sport. Mostbuniversities I know of have intramural sport open to all. The bar to inter mural sport is ability. If a student is good enough they are welcome aka walk on athletes.
Except that that team that my buddies joined just because they felt like it was intermural. They were the only league (as opposed to pick-up, which was common) ultimate team at the school, and they played against teams from other schools.
