EDSBS: Broke (On paying players)
http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2015/9/8/9249681/broke
Great read from "Orson", Spencer Hall over at EDSBS. At the risk of blockquoting the whole thing... just go read it
There is money someone earned over here, visibly earned through labor and special talent. There are people over here who have it. Something stands between them. To extend that point to its logical conclusion: Either what is going on is a vast confusion of what constitutes capital, or it is theft from every single football player that plays this stupid game to enrich a coach, athletic director, and the university. This is a system that willfully commits one of the greatest insults possible: making someone poorer, and then claiming that poverty as a necessary, virtuous and good thing. That's a lie, and anyone who's even been broke for a short time knows it. Pay them. Pay them what you owe them. Pay them because the worst American tradition is taking things that aren't yours and calling it destiny or virtue or principle. Pay them because there is no nobility in keeping someone a dollar poorer than they have to be in exchange for honest work. Pay them because any system that deliberately makes people poorer is one of designed cruelty, even at this relatively small scale. Pay them their goddamn money.
September 8th, 2015 at 3:34 PM ^
I mean, this topic has been hashed a lot on this site over the years, but the real discussion is not wheather players should be compensated. They are in their scholarship and associated benefits. The real question is whether they are being compensated enough or properly. Which is a much more nuanced arguement.
September 8th, 2015 at 3:50 PM ^
they are not being compensated enough. Yes, it is incredibly inequitable and borderline exploitive (though they are working on that). However, when this topic arises you will most often see me put my fingers in my ears and go "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU." The reason for this is that I cannot make a sound argument that college football players should not be paid and paid handsomely. However, the minute that happens, and I mean the very instant it occurs will spell the end of college football, period. It will still be a thing, it will still be something, but it will not this thing, and I don't think it will bear much resemblence to the thing that most people on this blog live and die with. The idea of the college football and the student athlete is a complete facade, but it is a very, very crucial one for the existence of one of my favorite things in the world. So I stay out of the conversation, knowing that there is a clear winning and losing argument, and with the knowledge that this thing I love so very much hangs on tediously with every season. The minute they pay them is the minute it all ends, so be careful what you wish for, righteous fans, because you just might get it.
September 8th, 2015 at 4:07 PM ^
The reason for this is that I cannot make a sound argument that college football players should not be paid and paid handsomely. However, the minute that happens, and I mean the very instant it occurs will spell the end of college football, period.
Actually I think that's a key argument right there. Requiring college athletes to be paid actual salaries will almost certainly lead to a reduction in college programs - at least the scholarship-granting ones. The economic model of college sports is iffy to begin with for most schools, and if you add tens of thousands in costs to every scholarship athlete, schools are going to throw in the towel.
The fundamental question is this: What's worse, having lots of scholarship opportunities for athletes but limited direct compensation, or having far fewer scholarship athletes but substantial compensation for those that remain?
September 8th, 2015 at 4:11 PM ^
so following your logic "Lots of schools cant afford it!"
What's to stop those who can? Will the MAC be worse than the B1G because B1G schools pay players?
The money difference within schools exists. That's why there's D3, and the Power 5. The Power 5 have money to make this happen. Their football (And to a much smaller extent basketball) players are making the schools this money. And getting a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of it.
September 8th, 2015 at 4:24 PM ^
You are assuming that the school isn't directly responsible for a large or even almost all of that money coming in.
While a star athlete can bring in some temporary additional revenue related to merchandising, merchandising is a small fraction of the overall revenue stream. The majority of the revenue stream for college athletics is independent of the individual players paying for a school.
September 8th, 2015 at 4:35 PM ^
September 8th, 2015 at 4:52 PM ^
We are in the midst of 8+ years of pretty much unmitigated failure and yet just signed one fo the most lucrative merchandising deals in history. That's not because of the product on the field but because of the University. The University with 500k+ living alumni, all fairly well to do, etc.
The value/monetary return from Michigan athletics is due to the university, not the players. There are lots of players around. There is only 1 UofM.
September 8th, 2015 at 4:19 PM ^
With a minor league system. Sure, it would spell the end of college football as we know it. The best athletes would probably choose to turn pro, as they do in hockey and baseball. The quality of play would probably suffer somewhat.
However, I do not believe that the passion for college football would diminish much for the very reason that passionate alumni and fans will remain attached to the universities they love.
September 8th, 2015 at 4:28 PM ^
no question about it. It is easier to cover it up in college basketball because you have 15,000 seats to fill instead of 115,000. Some are there for the tradition and the experience and the pageantry, etc., but only in conjuction with talent. You could not fill the Big House 6 times per year with our second string. People want to see Peppers, they want to see Cardale Jones, Braxton Miller, they want to see Denard. Russel Bellomy is not filling Michigan Stadium every Saturday.
September 8th, 2015 at 5:22 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 8th, 2015 at 10:51 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 8th, 2015 at 4:29 PM ^
You hit on it exacly, the reason by most fans will try deserpately to fine some "fairness" in the current system stems from the fact that they believe a drastic change like paying the players could destroy the sport they love.
There might be some merit to that. However, my selfish desires in no way justifies exploiting another individual. Men of principle do not come to conclusions in that manner.
September 8th, 2015 at 4:33 PM ^
claimed to be a man of principle. I have dropped a ball in the rough and claimed that I found it. I once stole a bread roll from a Big Boy saiad bar. I used a friends HBO-Go Account.
I am going to hell, but I would prefer to watch college football while I play out the string here.
September 9th, 2015 at 9:52 AM ^
And it is alright to say that. Like I said most of us cringe at the thought of going without the pleasure of college football. But we can still say the system isn't fair or equtiable and is designed to cash in on others performances, while insisting that keeping the revenues that you help generate away from you is in some way in your best interest.
September 8th, 2015 at 4:32 PM ^
My pet peeve is that players aren't allowed to take money from "boosters" and endorsements. IIRC, the word "booster" is an NCAA creation to punish schools and players when players take money.
Remember how great it was when the Fab Five were in Ann Arbor? That is what it would be like again if Michigan was allowed to compete on an even playing field with dirty programs like UK, Duke and Kansas.
Sick of losing football players to OSU and Bama? Imagine what it would be like if Michigan boosters were allowed to pay players, too. Best of all, imagine what the affiliation with Michigan would mean to players trying to maximize endorsement money from national corporations.
The players deserve the money and Michigan deserves to compete on a level playing field with programs that cheat and get away with it. Schools wouldn't even have to pay players; all they have to do is stop stealing opportunity from them.
September 8th, 2015 at 4:47 PM ^
they are not being compensated enough.
The top 1% are being massively undercompensated.
The other 99% are being massively overcompensated.
...and it isn't like they have to play college football. They can play in the CFL and numerous semi-pro leagues thoughout the USA without ever setting foot on a college campus.
Yet they choose college and it's compensation over those professional leagues... because they see the compensation from colleges as better than what is offered by the professional leagues in which they could play.
Same is true of basketball players - the D league, Euro leagues, and others (China, Israel) offer the opportunity to get paid playing professional basketball, yet players choose college over those paying opportunities.
September 8th, 2015 at 8:58 PM ^
Most things I agree with you, ijohnb, but not here. I think college football would survive and be even better if players were compensated on an open market, that is, without NCAA and government-backed coercive market manipulation.
September 8th, 2015 at 6:28 PM ^
September 8th, 2015 at 7:14 PM ^
That's incorrect. The university loses the chance to place another, tuition-paying student, in that seat.
But your point is moot, because the university gets full tuition for that player. The scholarship comes from the athletic department, not the academic departments. They have their own scholarships, and nobody is arguing that those students should get a salary on top of the scholarship.
September 8th, 2015 at 3:36 PM ^
So are we just ignoring the value of the education they are getting?
We can argue whether or not that's enough but this idea that a college athlete gets nothing out of what they give the University is wrong. No regular college student can make an equal amount of money working 40 hours per week while going to school. They choose to continue to play. The choose to play because there is a value (great value to some) in being able to continue to play the game and get an education in the process.
September 8th, 2015 at 3:41 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 8th, 2015 at 3:53 PM ^
Why not offer Tutition money to them rather than covering their scholarship than? I'm sure a good chunk of college football and basketball players would opt for cold hard cash over going to school.
Of course that introduces a ton of other issues.
September 8th, 2015 at 4:21 PM ^
So you want to turn the Michigan (and every other) Football program into the NFL farm league? Because that's what you're proposing. There would be no reason to associate the Wolverines to the University of Michigan if the players ain't have to play school.
September 8th, 2015 at 4:30 PM ^
Not what I want, simply seen that suggested before (I want to say it was Bomani Jones that brought it up.)
I do think it's an interesting option though. A lot of kids don't actually value that scholarship like other people think they should, and would value the money a lot more. But, as I said, it does introduce a lot of issues.
September 8th, 2015 at 4:43 PM ^
September 8th, 2015 at 5:24 PM ^
That may be true but there are also a lot of kids who may not have gone to college without football as an avenue but when they leave, they leave with a useful degree and a way to make a life different than the one they had previously. Vincent Smith, to me, is a great example of someone who gained a lot from being a college athlete and it didn't have to do with a pro career.
Also, if an athlete leaves college without a useful degree, that's their fault. They had an opportunity to make a lot out of those 4-5 years.
September 8th, 2015 at 4:52 PM ^
4 years of out of state tuition runs about $250,000.
...basically the equivalent of about $70,000/year pre-tax.
Note - greater 50% of the HOUSEHOLDS in the USA make less than this.
September 8th, 2015 at 5:02 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 8th, 2015 at 11:28 PM ^
Let's turn this discussion in the direction of a responsible, well-thought out, sustainable financial system...the student loan system!
September 8th, 2015 at 4:21 PM ^
September 8th, 2015 at 5:30 PM ^
People are arguing that. I have yet to see anyone on the side of paying the athlete more approach the subject of how much they are already getting. I would guess $40,000/year is a conservative estimate and that's a significant chunk of value. Add on to that the value of their degree when they are done, and it's even more. People that think these kids are getting taken to the cleaners won't talk about that. "They're broke." So is every other kid that doesn't have parents able to pay for everything and they also are coming out of school with a large amount of debt that the money making athletes aren't.
September 8th, 2015 at 6:49 PM ^
September 8th, 2015 at 4:01 PM ^
September 8th, 2015 at 4:07 PM ^
It's a decision and a choice- what is the alternative?
Work in a diner - you know it takes about 2 years full time at states' minimum wages to pay 1 year of tuition and expenses, right?
A huge part of the article is that these kids do not have other options. Their BEST option is a system that is hugely rigged to make LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of people rich - but not the kids themselves.
September 8th, 2015 at 4:24 PM ^
just bury themselves in student loan debt like most other kids these days. How many college kids would kill for a full ride scholarship and all the other benefits that athletes get?
September 8th, 2015 at 4:36 PM ^
And how many other kids have the athletic skill that provides those benefits? They don't.
The NFL math sheet that came out a few days ago said that something like the best 1.5% of high school football players get college scholarships.
Guess what? The best 1.5% of high school future-math-majors do too. Except the math majors get scholarships. and stipends. and can hold jobs. and, and, and.
Those college kids who are NOT getting full ride scholarships are not getting them because they're not elite in their field - be that athletics or academic.
September 8th, 2015 at 4:43 PM ^
be getting paid something, but probably not as much as you do.
I'd feel better about paying them if they were held to something closer to the admissions standards of regular students. Hell, you practically need a 4.0 and great ACT scores to get into Michigan now. I'm not sure that a 2.5 at a crap HS and a 22 ACT should be enough to get you in, regardless of how well you can tackle.
Idk, the whole think is complicated and my feelings and opinions shift often. Both sides make good arguments.
September 8th, 2015 at 4:48 PM ^
However, the guy with a 2.5 and a 22 who can tackle well is helping make MILLIONS for michigan over his 4 years.
The math genius wiht the 4.0 and 36 (who is getting everything the athlete is and more!) might make michigan a bit of publicity if they get published or something - i don't know how math people make money (says the engineer...)
We can agree that athletes ARE paid (in form of scholarship, etc). The other sticking point - for me anyway - is that the athletes are generating huge sums of money. Much much much bigger than they did even 25 years ago. As such, I argue that they should paid MORE than they get today, due to creating more revenue.
Take it this way, if you made your company about 250000% more money, would you be OK with not getting a raise?
September 8th, 2015 at 4:59 PM ^
You say that the math genius with the 4.0 and 36 is "getting everything the athlete is and more!".
I'm guessing not everything. I mean, it's not like a math major has never gotten laid. But probably less often than the star athlete.
Probably.
September 8th, 2015 at 5:17 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 8th, 2015 at 5:22 PM ^
and that math major is definitely putting their life on the line, or at least, you know, their brain, knees, hands, etc.
Again, the math major has to perform and generates a tiny percentage of the revenue that the football player does. Oh, and the football player also has to perform.
September 8th, 2015 at 7:20 PM ^
If the player genuinely thinks that he is generating "millions" for the university, he should quit the college team and take his talents to those willing to pay him "millions" to play for them.
Of course, if it is the university, and not the players, that is really making the money, then he's going to find himself SOL. But, he does have that choice.
September 8th, 2015 at 8:08 PM ^
September 8th, 2015 at 10:57 PM ^
Also, I really hope we win next week. It seems like when it's either the off-season or we lose we end up with this never ending ridiculous argument.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 9th, 2015 at 11:03 AM ^
He can go play in any professional football league other than the NFL - and there are several.
September 9th, 2015 at 11:02 AM ^
At the average university that math major (if a graduate student) generates much MORE revenue for the university.
Most football players at most universities cost the university money.
September 8th, 2015 at 5:02 PM ^
The other sticking point - for me anyway - is that the athletes are generating huge sums of money
There are 123 FBS level universities. 20 of them had revenues that exceeded expenses in 2013.
Of the 20 schools that made money, the median profit was $8.4 million;
Of the 103 schools that lost money, the median deficit was $14.9 million;
So even for those 20 schools that made money... that works out to $4,000 per football player, assuming we pay no one else.
September 8th, 2015 at 5:09 PM ^
Have you read Endzone? Sure, that's what the balance sheets say, but those numbers take into account the $5M per year that goes to the head coach. What about the other 300 staffers in the AD?
It's Brewster's Millions in athletic departments. They make all this money, they spend it to say "oh, we're in the red, we can't give players cream cheese on their bagels!"
September 8th, 2015 at 5:15 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad