All the professional gymnasts and professional wrestlers, of course. I’ll bet you don’t know there are professional runners, soccer players, tennis players, golfers, and billiards players too.
Or do you have a cite to back up your assertion that there are none?
So all the times in this thread that you posted that players should get paid, you were “being sarcastic”?
I guess you could call Cirque de Soleil acrobats pro gymnasts, though paid to perform not compete. I assume you ddon’t count WWE as professional wrestling, so there I don’t know what you’re thinking about. The number of people even making pocket money in wrestling is pretty close to nil.
Truth: College Sports are Advertising, and nobody expects advertising to make money directly.
Duke’s athletic program is in the red, net, but that spending gives them weeks of front page, national TV and radio advertising that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually purchase. Thousands of students every year add Duke to their list of schools as a direct result of Duke’s athletic program. Duke gets more students, can charge higher tuition, and gets more alumni donations as a direct result of Sports.
To say that the college subsidizes the sports team ignores the huge impact of sports on non-sports revenue.
First, what’s with the hostility?
Second, the NCAA and their university partners already collectively bargain rules, eligibility restrictions, compensation, etc. This idea is completely analogous to league-union bargaining in pro sports, so your comment is largely baseless. There is already an effective salary cap of $2000 (IIRC) an athlete can earn from a part time job, and it was instituted and enacted by the NCAA and universities. All you are doing in essence is raising the cap.
Yes, they have and it’s shameful. That said, it has nothing to do with this conversation.
Actually, people do wish there were more restrictions on those things all the time. One way they have done this is to institute rookie pay scale, and have financial literary programs available to players. Additionally, pro athletes have access to agents and other professionals that might hopefully help them manage their newfound wealth.
Well, I think you do need some kind of cap for a number of reasons.
Few players making millions of dollars as college athletes would ever take the school’s educational mandate seriously enough to actually go to class
There is too much booster money in the hands of too few. Places like Texas and OSU backs by people like T Boone Pickens would just irrationally bid up salaries to secure championships to a point where few schools could compete and few athletes would get the training they deserve. Just look at basketball where the NBA draft only has 60 slots. That’s basically 5 college teams. Even if we state that the best players won’t be completely concentrated, the likelihood is that almost every player would be on one of 10 or so teams. It’d basically be 10 Kentucky like teams turning over every year.
Boosters actual donate to sports teams in ways the alleviate the need for university funds. For example, boosters pay for perks for the coach, salaries for outside professionals, stadiums, weight rooms, etc. Boosters paid off Nick Saban’s mortgage. Others like Phil Knight have given their schools tens of millions of dollars.
While most of that isn’t strictly necessary, the reality is that if an “unlimited” amount of that money was going to paying players, then it’s likely that less would go to other things, and the school would end up on the hook for some of it. Some of the sports-induced donations end up going into general funds, and you don’t want to interrupt that too greatly.
Paying students would necessitate a lot of changes to the traditional NCAA business model, but I’m fine with that, things SHOULD change because right now the NCAA and schools are literally stealing from the students. I am for whatever changes that allow the students to earn a fair wage on the open market. If that means only a few big schools get to keep their programs because only they are currently making money, then I’m fine saying goodbye to the 100 other schools’ programs that don’t earn money. I don’t care about your school’s tradition, I care about fairness, and because we don’t have NBA teams in every city out of fairness, then maybe you shouldn’t expect a school in the middle of Iowa or Kentucky to have a major program. Its less of an evil if only the rich schools can afford the best high school players than our current system which everyone supposedly gets a shot.
I’m also fine if they get rid of the student athlete moniker too. If schools just want to hire people to play basketball for them, so be it. Let them run a secondary league to the NBA made up of 18-22 year olds.
One thing that also bugs me is how much the school gets to determine where and how the kid plays. Right now, I think the general rule is that once you get accepted to a school, the coach decides to play you however he wants and even if you’re cut, you can’t go to an opposing school. Yeah, fuck that shit right in the ass, its a prohibition that never should have been allowed to exist. Let the coach determine how he wants to play his team, but if the kid doesn’t like it, he gets to quit the school just like if he were at any other major and apply somewhere else. None of this lock out shit. No coach should be allowed to sit on a player just because he feels its better for the team to not play someone but also not allow him to go somewhere else to play.
I don’t believe this will essentially kill collegiate sports. I think reducing them as a focus is a positive thing. So what if schools can’t afford these giant stadiums? My high school has a typical dirt track around the empty field we call a football stadium, with aluminum bench seats on either side for the home and away teams. There’s no reason colleges should have to have these million dollar stadiums. If they have to downsize so they can afford to keep having football, then downsize.
I’d love to see them paid, but I’m still yet to see a workable plan.
Winners:
Star players
Big schools
Losers:
Title IX
Small schools
Lesser players
I so tire of ill informed idiots making blanket statements that college athletes have to be paid without coming up with a workable plan. If it happens, more people are going to get fucked than receive the perks.
I apologize if that came off as hostile - I thought you were ignoring a big part of my point, but I think you just don’t understand the difference between a salary cap in the professional leagues and the salary cap that you’re proposing for college athletes. I’ll repost what I said about that, bolding the important part that I think you’re missing:
This isn’t collective bargaining - it’s collusion. Collective bargaining implies that a labor union (a hypothetical NCAA players’ union, but a very real NFLPA or NBAPA) has a seat at the table and can accept those terms on behalf of all the players. It’s legal for there to be a salary cap in the NFL, for example because the NFLPA agreed to it in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA); in 2010, there was no CBA and thus no legal salary cap. When the NFL instituted an “unofficial” cap that season, the league was guilty of collusion.
What the NCAA does is analogous to that collusion, and not to the existing professional salary caps.
It has everything to do with the conversation - it’s the difference between a legal salary cap and illegal collusion.
Again, the rookie wage scales are collectively bargained with the players’ unions. The leagues can’t just decide to enact rookie wage scales, and the unions make sure they get something back in return for allowing those limits. In the case of both the NBA and the NFL, the salary caps are tied to a percentage of the league’s total revenue. I’m not sure how the NHL figures it. Major league baseball doesn’t have a salary cap, although there’s some kind of luxury tax for teams with payrolls that eclipse certain thresholds.
These are good reasons for the NCAA to want to institute a cap, but none of them is a reason for the players to accept a cap. If the players have the legal status of employees (which the Northwestern players were granted, although litigation over the question is far from over), the NCAA cannot legally establish a cap without the consent of the players.
It would never be unlimited money - the schools and boosters would eventually figure out where the break even point is and spend accordingly. You might have to break D1/FBS into more divisions of haves and have-nots, but I think most people acknowledge that something has to change. Just add that to the list.
There are no reasons that justify the restrictions on players being allowed to market their skills outside of their athletic programs. What the universities fear is a loss of control, a loss of competitiveness and a loss of funding that would otherwise come directly to them. Too bad. They may have built this financial – or at least marketing – powerhouse on the backs of unpaid labor but that doesn’t mean they’re entitled to it.
They’re not playing fair and we should expect more out of our institutions of higher learning.
It also ignores the inflated expenses paid. The Duke basketball coach on a program that is supposedly in the “red” gets over 4 million dollars as a salary. The idea that your program pays out inflated salaries and facility costs then starts bitching about not having enough money to go around is ludicrous. How about cutting down that coach salary and gold plated facilities so you can actually pay the people taking a part in generating the revenues for the schools sports programs.
Some schools might genuinely be cash strapped, but not Duke.
And frankly, I think title IX reform should be on the table. If it’s really the case that allowing players to be paid causes issues with title 9, then that suggests to me we need to reform it. Not ignore the statues and allow the slave labor to continue.
The idea that we should be forced to spend the SAME money on womens and mens sports is a terrible offshoot of the feminist movement. Should we be impelled to spend the same money on mens and womens prisons? Even though men are far more likely to commit violent crime?
“But equality” is a garbage answer.
Your attempt to pervert the meaning of the term “collective bargaining” to mean “unilateral declaration by those that manage the monopoly” is disgusting. I’ve no idea what went on before between you two, but for me, that pathetic attempt at doublespeak of yours alone is worthy of hostility.
So you go from hostility to condescension?
As it is with every league which has various anti trust exemptions. There is no practical difference between a compulsory union who can only work with one league, and the NCAA working with universities on behalf of players.
No, it doesn’t really. Plenty of things are collectively bargained without unions. Additionally, the strict definition cannot really apply since college athletes are not employees. Once again though, that has nothing to do with the debate given salary caps are not illegal.
First, you are assuming things in contest. Second, salary caps are not illegal per se. What is being alleged here is a contract dispute which is exacerbated by the fact that the NFL has specific anti trust exemptions which complicate the matter.
You are just wrong here. They already do this. As I said, NCAA athletes are limited on the income they can make even if they are being paid a normal wage for work. That is not illegal, and will likely continue for years to come. Even the partial loss the NCAA suffered with the O’Bannon case made specific exceptions for the NCAA to limit the pay of atheltes:
The judge also said all monies could be deferred and put into a trust for the athlete. So basically the NCAA has a right to do what I am suggesting.
No, it doesn’t meet the legal definition of collusion. The NFL has exemptions to act as a one entity for collective bargaining purposes, but not for individual teams colluding to limit player salaries. The lawsuit was about TEAMS acting to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding players. The NCAA isn’t doing that. Once again, they have already effectively instituted a wage cap on athletes. Unless you can give a legal rationale for why the NCAA can tell an athlete they can only earn $2000/year but cannot change that limit to $100k? Please explain why you think that cannot happen?
Thanks for the unnecessary history lesson.
Nonsense. There is ample evidence this doesn’t happen in sports that don’t have salary caps (eg. baseball), and runaway inflation in other related salaries and expenditures (eg. the Clippers selling for $2 billion, coaching salaries).
Worthy of hostility? We are talking about sports not nuclear proliferation. Maybe you need to get some perspective.
Also, why do you assume colleges wouldn’t be have a say in the process? Once again, the NCAA already limits pay an athlete can receive from anywhere. If some D1 football player happens to be such a good programmer that Google wants to pay him $10k for the summer, he cannot take the money above a certain amount. This is the current state of affairs. Raising the limit to $100k or something like that is more than generous and ensures competitive balance and amateurism to some extent.
These last two posts are old-timey thinking. The universities agreeing to impose unilateral restrictions on the incomes of students with proven market values in excess of what they are getting now is the basis of the lawsuits of which O’Bannon was merely the first. And not only was O’Bannon fairly narrowly construed but could very well be overturned on appeal by the plaintiffs, who already won a foothold against the collusion.
There’s a fellow named Jeffrey Kessler coming along who is going to take dead aim at the whole system. He alleges that it is a wage-fixing cartel that has no exemption to be so and I agree with him.
Basically, the scholarship contract does not give the schools carte blanch to impose whatever restrictions they wish when they all agree to offer the exact same contract.
While the landscape is clearly changing, even the recent O’Bannon case loss carved out exceptions for limiting wages and even allowing them to be deferred an put into a trust. That judge also said the NCAA can still stop athletes from marketing themselves that is a legitimate pro-competitive rule. Here is a breakdown of that decision:
As soon as colleges start paying football players, you probably have to pay golfers, field hockey players, and a whole bunch of people that generally cannot make a valid case that they deserve payment at all.
Treating athletes as employees will likely cause more problems than it solves. Employees have to pay taxes, can be fired at any time, are largely anathema to the concept of amateur athletics.
I don’t see an issue with paying them. I think a lot of people are imagining professional athlete salaries, and I don’t think that’s necessarily the right idea. In my mind, a student athlete shouldn’t be treated much differently from a grad student with funding.
I’m a grad student in Computer Science, and my lab has granted me a tuition waiver, as well as a stipend of $21k/yr (before taxes, and at my income, more or less after taxes too). Since my lab and program are very well funded, I’m not really in danger of losing this, but for some departments (especially in soft sciences and humanities) it’s more of a rocky affair. In exchange for this stipend, I either assist with teaching classes, or work on producing publishable research, depending on the term. I am listed as “.49 full time”, which is kind of funny, but I essentially count as a part time employee (I assume in my state .5 full time confers extra benefits which is why I’m .49).
I also have extremely good health insurance, and we’re getting a lot of benefits like paternity and maternity leave lately, but that’s mostly because my school has a very strong graduate union and I understand that good benefits are sadly uncommon for funded grad students.
I don’t see a huge problem with adopting this sort of model for college athletes, I think a small stipend and a tuition waiver, as well as allowing students partial rights to their own merchandising are all fine. Yes, a lot of sports departments are in the net red, but as mentioned, they’re advertising to a degree. The amount of money they produce isn’t directly measured by actual income from sporting events and merchandising deals. But the same goes for me, I’m dubious that I produce enough value to the university to warrant effectively $35k+/yr (including the value of the tuition waiver), especially given the high dropout rates of grad students.
Athletes are arguably providing a more immediate, noticeable benefit than I am to the university, so I think giving them at least a similar deal is very fair. Maybe with some wiggle room (perhaps paying lower tier athletes less or only reserving this deal for the starting roster or whatever).
I think treating them like grad students is actually the way to go. That was my background thkught all along. They get some money for being tutors or “teacher’s aid” or something. Turning them into true employees is a blind knee jerk reaction.
Aren’t they already treated like employees? They have to follow codes of conduct, show up to work (practice and games), and can have scholarships revoked for any number of reasons.
The sports that don’t bring in money should still pay the athletes if they’re governed by the NCAA. The NCAA has pretty draconian restrictions on athletes accepting gifts or money from anyone aside from family. Whether you’re a women’s lacrosse player or a Division I men’s football player, until recently if you come from a poor background you could literally have problems getting enough to eat if your family can’t give you the money. I believe they finally changed this rule to allow meals and snacks to be provided by the athletic program at the beginning of this school year.
Athletes have a full slate of classes, plus tens of hours of practice per week, and don’t really have time to get part time jobs. It’s no surprise that big time college athletes get in trouble for accepting money under the table when the NCAA makes it so hard for them while raking in tens of millions of dollars per year in surplus. Some reports in the past few years say the NCAA has a had surpluses topping $60 million per year.
Here is the problem, you are supposing that the NCAA works on behalf of the players. They don’t. They work for the universities. At best they exist to maintain the “integrity” of the system, and create rules so the unis don’t corrupt the system to get an edge.
Unions are created by the players to work for the players, and the players themselves approve any collectively bargained terms. That is a practical difference, a huge difference as big a difference as there can be in a negotiation.
The universities have no special exemption for collusion to fix compensations; it’s simply a power they have assumed for themselves in the light of no organized resistance and their monopoly position. That power is rightfully under attack now.
FWIW, I don’t think schools should pay players. I just think they should be allowed to. Schools should actually return to their core mission and reduce the time demands on students who participate in sports. But if Booster Bob (remember him from the O’Bannon thread?) wants to toss 50 Gs at Superstud QB so he’ll happily stay and play at State U, then nobody should be allowed to interfere, either. That’s a private transaction outside the purview of a university athletic program, competitive balance be damned. “Competitive balance” is just an excuse to keep the money coming in and the desire for it shouldn’t trump the athletes’ individual commercial rights.