'Business Insider' estimates average Michigan football players' value at $505,298 per year
Well, by BI's measure that's quite a tad more than the cost of their education. I suppose that if the costs of their coaches, training, support staff and their facilities were factored into this then it would put a dent in the figure at which Business Insider arrived. If players were actually to engage in some kind of collective bargaining, then all of those points and more would be factors.
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/09/business_insider_estimates_ave.html#incart_river
September 23rd, 2015 at 12:28 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 1:07 AM ^
I agree and upvoted.
But just a quick aside: It drives me crazy when people reference ads on soccer jerseys like it's the apex of crass commercialism that all other sports should be tasked to avoid. Soccer doesn't have commercial breaks. One super big ad >>> ruining the pace and rhythm of the game like the NFL.
September 23rd, 2015 at 2:22 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 2:42 AM ^
Not sure if that's why exactly though. Korean and Japanese baseball leagues have corporate team names but they still have commercial breaks on TV. Not saying I'm outraged by the ads on their jerseys but I'm also not sure how necessary it is.
September 23rd, 2015 at 6:29 AM ^
And European basketball teams - not to mention the WNBA - have ads on uniforms even though they take commercial breaks during broadcasts. The connection between jersey advertising and television timeouts is tenuous.
September 23rd, 2015 at 7:38 AM ^
It may not be the case that ads on jerseys intrinsically abrogate the need for commercial breaks, but I think the point was that commercial-less soccer certainly would not be possible without ads on the jerseys. In the particular instance where it works out, it is an interesting trade-off.
September 23rd, 2015 at 9:29 AM ^
This is a red herring. Television contracts for European soccer are enormous, despite the fact that there are no commercial breaks during a half. Clubs make far more from TV than from jersey advertising (which for most clubs amounts produces only modest revenue). See my other post below.
September 23rd, 2015 at 8:17 AM ^
They're coming in the NBA, too.
September 23rd, 2015 at 7:55 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 9:18 AM ^
The NFL is ridiculous with its commercials. Nine times out of ten, they will take a commercial break for every time out, even when a team takes just a twenty-second one. They will also go to commercial after every score, come back for the kickoff, and then go to commercial AGAIN after said kickoff. That is one reason I don't like watching NFL games. The main reason being that it's just flat out boring compared to NCAA football.
September 23rd, 2015 at 9:26 AM ^
It drives me crazy when people reference ads on soccer jerseys like it's the apex of crass commercialism that all other sports should be tasked to avoid. Soccer doesn't have commercial breaks.
It is crass commercialism. European soccer teams make far more money from television than they do from jersey advertising. The 20 clubs of the English Premier League will make a total of $4.3 billion a year under their new television contract. To put that into perspective, the 32 franchises of the NFL are receiving a total of $3 billion a year under their TV deals (the richest of all North American sports). Even with far fewer commercial breaks, they'll be making make much more per club from television than any North American team will.
European clubs absolutely can function without advertising, but they don't want to. They want even more money and they dupe their fans into accepting it with the red-herring argument you cited.
September 23rd, 2015 at 8:51 PM ^
You know what those clubs do with all that cash? PAY FOR THEIR FUCKING STADIUMS. The NFL leaves LA open as a constant threat they use to cities to fund their new digs. The Vikings are pillaging their communities to the tune of $500 million to help build their latest palace. That is despicable.
September 23rd, 2015 at 6:22 PM ^
THIS COMMENT BROUGHT TO YOU BY EMIRATES
Yeah, I think ads on the jerseys is an overblown bogeyman. I mean, school logos on jerseys are nothing more than ads, too, right?
FLY EMIRATES
September 23rd, 2015 at 6:13 AM ^
And a point of order, The NCAA has nothing to do with the Heisman trophy nor do they really have anything to do with the functioning of the Sugar Bowl.
As for advertising on the uniforms, its been there for decades, or do you not see the stripes or swoosh or U?
September 23rd, 2015 at 8:18 AM ^
This is to portray the big mean universities so it gives a big gross number and ignores expenses for the sport. It also ignores that few schools generate the money Michigan does and most football teams operate at a loss. It also ignores that the revenue sports help offset the costs of other sports. If this money is paid to the football players, most other sports disappear.
You also have to look at the alternative. If not for the natural ties created by supporting these schools, they would be playing in the "minor leagues". These leagues do not produce large salaries.
It doesn't affect me either way, but look at what changes about the college experience and scholarships available to other athletes that disappear if the players are paid in the neighborhood this number suggests.
There may actually be football players on the team that don't get a full ride scholarship since the long snapper may not have the marquee value of Peppers.
I'd also not be surprised to see more of a Dave Brandon model used to generate revenue. They would have to find every source of revenue to keep this going. That would mean advertising all over and a number of other things the Michigan fans have said make Michigan different from the pros. The things Brandon didn't get.
Someone below mentioned that you would have to cut coaches and admin salaries which may be the result but their is already a disparity in salaries paid to top college and professional coaches. At some point you push the Harbaugh's and Saban's to the pros because there is simply too much of a salary difference.
There are things I think the schools can and should do for the players but to suggest this is the number that the players should get dramatically changes the whole university experience.
September 23rd, 2015 at 8:41 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 8:47 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 9:21 AM ^
BlueCube, very well articulated post and upvote! I wish people would actually take the time and try and understand what you wrote.
September 23rd, 2015 at 9:37 AM ^
The one thing I should have added was that there would likely be roster reductions to more NFL sized roster. This would reduce education opportunities for another 40 or so players per year. Few of these guys are going to the pros. The lost education opportunities is huge.
Some may say the players get a crappy education because of what they are forced to take by the coaches which may be true in some cases. Those who don't take advantage of it are losing out. That's there loss and it should not affect those who actually take advantage of it. The problem is there should be more coaches like Harbaugh who are demanding academic excellence in addition to pushing them on the football career. I think I am more proud of Harbaugh for pushing the kids in the classroom than for anything else he has done.
If anyone should be attacked, it should be the professional leagues who put artificial age requirements on to keep kids in school and reduce their costs to develop. Take off the age constraints and let the market decide who should be a professional athlete.
September 23rd, 2015 at 10:13 AM ^
I will respectfully disagree with your last paragraph - but still upvote you. As we have seen, the NFL and NBA are using colleges as their minor league farm system. This is probably due to in part to the fact that the college versions of those 2 sports have made money over time and thus those those 2 have gotten bigger vs. professionally run minor leagues like in baseball and hockey.
While I am a staunch capitalist, I understand and agree that we have to have some rules and regulations for business or it will run amok. Similarly by not having college basketball players stay for say at least 3 years, the quality of play in the college game AND at the NBA level has suffered over time. College is truly the only place where players can really improve their skills for the next level. But by having kids stay only 1 year, they do not fully develop their game, they are drafted on potential, and many have very short NBA careers and thus there is a lot more "churn and burn" of these NBA players whose development is stunted as their is very little time to practice skills during the season. I know they can work in the off season, but you do not have the organized practices etc. In addition, by staying 3 and hopefully 4 years, the kids at least get a chance to get an education even if by accident so that if they do not make it in the pros, they will at least have an education. So if I were in charge, and most people are glad I am not, I would have a 4 year rule for both FB and BB.
September 23rd, 2015 at 10:13 AM ^
I agree with you that the minor leagues cost a lot of money to maintain. Baseball subsidizes the minor leagues and makes a circus atmosphere to generate money for the minor league teams. Salaries are low for the players except for a few bonus babies that get larger salaries. This is what I see happening to colleges if we start paying athletes. What is the difference between the minors where there are losses for better play than colleges? It's the ties to the school and tradition which contradicts the argument that these players make tons of money for the schools. The schools develop the stars and get them ready for professional leagues.
My point in suggesting the age/grade limitations be removed is that this is an arbitrary thing to keep kids in school by the professional leagues. If you remove these limitations, I think you will see very few of these players move because they aren't ready, or you will have a situation like college basketball where they go to the NBA and wash out or play D League or overseas because they aren't ready. This in effect hurts the majority of the players, however if the players say they should have an ability to be paid, I'd rather have it done through the professional leagues than to destroy the whole college atmosphere that makes the college game different and great.
September 23rd, 2015 at 10:57 AM ^
I agree with most of what you are saying here, but the argument I've mostly heard made isn't that the revenue-generating sports should necessarily receive all of their "value", only that some of this additional revenue could be passed on to athletes in the form of additional stipends and ongoing medical/educational care, if appropriate. Yes, the University receives a portion of licensed sales and some of that piece is floated down to the various athletic programs, but there are so many open hands along the way that aren't related in any meaningful way to collegiate athletics, that people are taking issue with.
Maybe this is supposed to shame ADs and big schools, but I think it is more to point out that all those guys in shiny jackets on the sidelines of the Tostito's All State Fiesta Chipotle Bowl sponsored by Avengers 2: Age of Ultron with special guest Pepsi aren't really looking out of the best interests of the guys on the field, and so the least you can do is give those athletes a couple extra thousand dollars for living expenses that they can't earn any other way legally and, once their bodies are destroyed by playing football for 4 years, maybe some ongoing medical care in the event that they are injured doing said sport.
I know this might crater a couple of athletic departments and that sucks, but that's also part of the deal if you want to take advantage of all the benefits of D1 sports that, in theory, each school derives. The AAC is a collection of scrubs, but it's a collection of scrubs that still get millions of dollars a year from TV deals, licensing, bowl revenue, etc. I'm sure if they backed out of sports they'd have to cut programs and then you get Title IX involved, but nobody said it was going to be easy.
September 23rd, 2015 at 8:16 AM ^
Those jerseys are prime space for some advertisements!!!
September 23rd, 2015 at 12:48 AM ^
This whole thing makes me feel gross.
September 23rd, 2015 at 12:48 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 1:14 AM ^
That's true and it will complicate any future compensation system. Still doesn't mean "nobody gets paid" is the correct solution.
September 23rd, 2015 at 1:58 AM ^
So just let players take whatever the market will give them from whoever wants to pay them. The NCAA would keep some of their one or two and dones longer. Imagine if Nik Stauskas had been offered $4 million per year in endorsements to stay at Michigan his junior and senior years and take advantage of a higher profile than he would have had as an NBA rookie.
Michigan would win big if this was allowed. It would allow them to legally compete with the cheaters. It's obvious from Larry Krystkowiak's comments that the reason Michigan suddenly "grows cold" on recruiting certain basketball prospects is that the demand for money came and JB doesn't want to break the rules. I can't imagine it being any "cleaner" in football.
September 23rd, 2015 at 7:39 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 7:40 AM ^
Right but then to get recruits it would turn into a bidding war. Everythign would be about the dollar amount and a guarantee to get that money than the education and tradition and team they would be playing on. Also, currently the "cheaters" probably don't pay them a fair market value. I'm sure no kid is making 100k/year in any program that handed out improper benefits. I also don't think a lot of us on this blog would want a kid on our team who only came here for the money and not the school (the thing we all love).
Michigan would be a winner in this bidding war, as we have $4 Billion dollar institution. Not many public universites can even get close to that. To finish my point, I think if this were even a thing to happen (to pay players based on market value) then recruiting would need a lot more rules to restrict it and make things fair, but that ruins the whole point.
September 23rd, 2015 at 7:48 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 8:17 AM ^
Well according to the article we're only third in revenue for just this sport. We're behind Texas and Alabama. So I still think we would be a winner. That wasn't my point though. It was if it became legal to start placing salaries on players based on market value or as a percentage of the sport's overall revenue then we would be bidding on recruits and pulling in players who want the money and not the school. I mean if you approach a 17 year old with 4 offers from 4 great schools. A smart kid too. Stanford offers him $95k/year, Yale offers him $35k/year, Northwestern offers him $115k/year, and Michgian offers him $250k/year. Think as a 17 year old, which one would you choose? Did you even look at the schools that I mentioned, or did you only pay attention to the dollar amount? Bidding, paying a kid a percentage of money on the value they bring in will only make a kid play for the money and not the team.
September 23rd, 2015 at 9:07 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 6:39 AM ^
But it's not like they literally get nothing. They get a $200K education (if they're out-of-state) which not only saves them money now but will for years to come as they won't carry any debt. Plus the value of the coaching they get (how much would it cost to hire personal coaches to work with them 48 weeks a year?). Plus the networking opportunities you can have as an ex-Michigan football player - that opens doors that even a regular Michigan grad can't necessarily get.
I think for most football players, it's a good deal. The average is misleading here because there obviously is a top end of the curve with super-marketable guys like Denard who are worth way more than that, but then you've got lots of defensive tackles, fullbacks, punters and what have you (plus all the second and third stringers even at the glamour positions). No way is a second-string offensive guard going to pull in 500K in an open market.
It's just a crummy deal for that small number of genuine superstars that fans pay to see. But how do you compensate them without making the house of cards fall? Most athletic departments aren't terribly viable financially as it is.
September 23rd, 2015 at 7:41 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 8:49 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 12:56 AM ^
I wonder how that differs between players if you were to calculate at the individual level. For example, I would not be suprised if Denard was worth 10% of the value (attendance, apparel) for the team during those lean years. I am guessing if we calculate at the individual basis there are probably a handful of players with value in the 7 and maybe 1 in the 8 figures range, but many would be closer to the education cost (plus facilities, coaches, health, etc) and some below it. Of course, there is also the other side that you need a team to practice, you need 11 men on the field, etc. But if you just calculate the amount of revenue brought in by the team I wonder how that breaks down. I am personally in favor of paying players or at least having a way for them to receive some of the money they generate. Just wondering what it would be like if each player gets paid close to their value and what that would mean for the entire team and for teams that run at a deficit.
September 23rd, 2015 at 1:01 AM ^
That's my reaction every time I hear the likes of Mark Emmert and Jim Delaney use their invented word, "amateurism."
September 23rd, 2015 at 7:32 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 1:18 AM ^
It looks like 47% of the budget goes to the players, or 47% * $91,383,749 (full program revenue) = $42,950,362.
The school therefore gets 53% * $91,383,749 = $48,433,387 revenue in this scenario. So the school would be able to pay for a lot of expenses out of that pot.
While expenses may add up that both players and the school would have to help pay for, I think there is a lot of value each player brings indirectly when you think about how a successful football program raises the Michigan brand value. Yeah, there's apparel...I don't know the value there or if any is included in the football program revenue, but there's indirect value, too.
For example, admissions interest. I heard after the national championship year in 1997 that 2-3x as many students applied. That means higher quality of students (and greater future alumni donations) and higher tuition now...definitely more high quality international students who would pay a premium.
Then there's a greater likelihood of landing "current" alumni donations and even grants due to strong corporate affinity to a "winning" school.
Lots of indirect revenue to consider. A full analysis may increase the value.
September 23rd, 2015 at 1:32 AM ^
I have to disagree about the quality of student. Yes, increased interest in the school is great, but you are not going to get top scholars to come to your school because of a National Championship. They will do their due diligence, and choose accordingly. Football will not be their deciding factor. Applications will be higher, but that does not mean higher quality.
Also, +1 to you for doing the breakdown of the budget.
September 23rd, 2015 at 1:59 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 2:33 AM ^
Haha Where did I say they would be unqualified to succeed!?
The post I responded to said that international students would pay a premium to come to UM after winning a National Championship. I politely disagreed with that post, although they made some solid points. Admission standards are at an all time high right now. Out of state enrollment is as well.
Like I said, applications would go up but that wouldn't effect the quality of student admitted. Thousands are rejected every year with a shitty football team, and thousands will be rejected once Harbaugh has us winning.
September 23rd, 2015 at 3:15 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 7:27 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 4:37 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 5:00 AM ^
I'm not arguing anything. You're talking about an increase in applications, and yes that's great for UM. I was referencing people applying just because the football team is good as Kalamazoo stated happened after the 97 NC.
Obviously there can be exceptions, but I don't see too many groundbreaking scholars deciding their academic futures based on the results of a football team. The only possible way to quantify this would be to have a checkbox on the application asking if the football team factored into the decision.
Again this is MY OPINION, never claimed any of it to be fact.
Facts for thought:
1998 UM (After N.C.) :21,324 applications received, 12,590 admitted
2015 UM: 51,753 applications received, 13,555 admitted.
The people not admitted necessarily weren't qualified, they just didn't make the cut for some reason. That is my point. Even though applications are skyrocketing, the actual number of admissions has remained steady.
September 23rd, 2015 at 6:22 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 7:25 AM ^
September 23rd, 2015 at 10:30 AM ^
"Like i said, applications would go up but that wouldn't effect the quality of student admitted"
It may or may not.
If it increases the number of top performers that apply - it does.
If the increase comes from the middle of the bell curve - it doesn't.
There is no reason to assume that the increased application pool would mirror academically the base application pool. There is also no reason to assume it wouldn't.
An increase in applications leads to an increase in quality of admittances unless you are arguing that all additional applicants are unqualified.
An increase of qualified applicants that fall in the middle of the applicant bell curve does not lead to an increas in quality - even though you have an increase in qualified applicants. The idea that an increase in applications necessarily leads to an improvement in quality is an assertion without evidence.