On the other hand, rule of law.
It makes more sense to revise the law than to get into the business of interpreting things just any which way you want.
Do you know if other types of scholarships have the same restriction? Not that anyone would, but could a music major’s scholarship be negotiated?
This has only been decided narrowly and temporarily. The lawsuits aren’t going to stop. Besides, the schools may eventually decide that treating the revenue athletes as employees is a better deal for them than having to defend treating said athletes more restrictively than they do other students, none of whom are denied the right to sell their talents at market value.
I think you’re missing the most important issue, which is that of athletes’ treatment going forward. Kessler and others will start with the scholarship offer, which is non-negotiable and no different from any other schools’ offer. The scholarship is clearly compensation and the federal courts will make the schools defend a practice that is clearly not allowed in any other venue.
Yes, the athletes agreed to play for the terms offered. The terms that are the same no matter what the school. If you want to use a term other than wage fixing, be my guest but it won’t change the reality.
Like the lawsuits that attempt to outlaw abortion because life begins at conception? The number of lawsuits are irrelevant.
If this particular lawsuit made a compelling case that relevant statutes demand that athletes be paid, I’m totally willing to say, “Hey! They have a good point. Colleges need to follow the law.” But that isn’t the case here. This particular argument - cafeteria workers get paid, so why don’t we? - sucks. It’s devoid of foundation. It’s frankly kind of childish - “Kathy goes to the same school and gets a paycheck! Why can’t I? It’s not fair!!!”
If colleges want to adopt bad policies, as many of them already do in other areas (padding endowments while raising tuition for example) then they can go right ahead and do that. But the law doesn’t require them to do what you think is good policy.
It isn’t compensation for work. The Labor regulations say that clearly.
Thats not wage fixing, no more than working in fast food for near minimum wage no matter what restaurant you work at constitutes wage fixing.
I didnt read this whole thread but what about injuries that affect the athlete/person for life? Shouldnt the university be liable? I mean already while playing for a college any injuries are covered by the colleges insurance. Shouldnt that include after they quit playing like if they are injured and need lifelong physical therapy or medication?
So the idea is that by giving substantial scholarships to the entertainers, they can be stingy with the rest of the student body? And that’s an argument in favor of intercollegiate athletics?
The US schools whicht charge the most rarely have top sports programs. Still, I guess it could be the case that the top football and basketball schools discount their tuition less frequently, resulting in more high-paying clients. Googling, I fail to find statistics, by school, on average tuition revenue booked per student, so I can’t really test your hypothesis.
Here is the value of a winning football season (.pdf of academic research):
[quote]
s. We find that winning reduces acceptance rates and increases donations, applications, academic reputation, in-state enrollment, and incoming SAT scores.[/quit]
So, yeah, having a winning football team improves the overall standings of the school which benefits all students.
What I’m saying is that the Michigan Football program does not exist primarily to benefit the Michigan Football Players. They did not build and maintain a 100,000 seat stadium to make sure that the players get a better game-day experience. They spend tens of millions of dollars a year on the program for the betterment of the institution, the student body and alumni who write big checks.
The Glee Club exists primarily to benefit glee club members. It might be the best glee club in the world, but U of M is not the primary beneficiary of their excellence, it’s the members who benefit from the experience.
There’s a reason Div I sports have strict transfer eligibility rules, and it isn’t for the student’s benefit.
[quote=“Algher, post:107, topic:729734”]
Here is the value of a winning football season (.pdf of academic research):
That study is kind of useless. It shows that winning improves enrollment and donation and so on over the course of a single season. It totally ignores the fact that you need to spend huge amounts of money over decades to build a competitive program, not to mention the fact that there is no way to actually guarantee wins.
If we’re still addressing the narrow question posed in the thread title, your answer is relevant. Perhaps I’ve strayed too far in discussing the larger and more interesting question at hand. Though I don’t think I’ve strayed very far in noting that the determination of college athletes in revenue sports as employees or not is not over at all.
I don’t understand your point here.
The fast food chains don’t have an agreement in place among themselves to pay only minimum wages. Maybe minimum wage in the form of a scholarship IS the market price for college football players. Maybe, in fact, it’s overpayment for their services. But we don’t know because the schools won’t let the market determine their worth. Ok, giggle, we all know that some of them will get thousands upon thousands hurled at them. That shit will hit the fan in the years to come unless the schools can defend why they should be exempt from the normal rules of commerce.
So far their best attempt seems to be “We should be exempt from the normal rules of commerce because if we aren’t, we won’t be able to continue being exempt from the normal rules of commerce and will thus be unable to sustain a business built on exploiting young, naive, powerless individuals.” IMO. YMMV.
Many of the arguments made in support of the NCAA, Uber, etc. seem to indicate a desire to begin a new Lochner era (although I suspect most have never heard the term, hence the link).
At the risk of further hijacking this most interesting thread, the schools essentially are gearing up a “we’re special” defense. Their argument is that fan interest and the subsequent inflow of billions is uniquely contingent on the athletes not being compensated beyond a scholarship. They will ask the courts to agree that the harm (loss of revenue to the wonderful schools, loss of enjoyment for the fans) is far greater than the loss of individual commercial rights of some college athletes.
Plaintiff in the OP appears to be asking the court to force her school to pay her. I don’t see how that will ever come about. Kessler and those who follow him will be asking instead that the agreement among the schools to limit compensation be nullified.
[quote=“Really_Not_All_That_Bright, post:109, topic:729734”]
The study shows that there is a payoff from a top program, it is not an ROI measurement, true.
I still argue that the bigger issue to me is the players not being able to profit off of their own likeness. College players should be allowed to do endorsements, get a licensing fee for their number, etc. while a player for the team. The downside is that top schools will have an even greater advantage in recruiting, making the NCAA championships a more boring contest.
That’s pretty much a foregone conclusion anyway. The Power 5 conference alignment is basically going to create a new Division 1 Plus and shut out the old mid-majors.