EDSBS: Broke (On paying players)

September 8th, 2015 at 3:45 PM ^

"Regardless of how nice and proper it might be to compensate somebody for their efforts, where are those athletic departments that normally operate in the red—which is the vast majority of them—going to get the large pile of cash that will be required to pay players?"

I believe the entire "Atheletic Departments are in the Red!" is a bit of a Red Herring in most situations. Look at the Univiersty as a whole, are they making money off of sports or not? In most situations.. they are, and they're making a lot.

It's a bit like me taking $100 out of my right pocket and putting it into my left pocket, and they saying my right pocket is broke and I can't afford to pay for anything.

Joined: 09/03/2008

MGoPoints: 1570

Njia

September 8th, 2015 at 4:01 PM ^

Only two sports generally make money for a university, and then only at a few top programs like Michigan: football and men's basketball. What about all of the so-called "non-revenue sports"?

Moreover, while Michigan and a few other schools (the number is actually surprisingly small) run their athletic departments as a fiscally separate entity from the larger university budget, the majority don't; of those whose budgets are integrated, analysis done on this site a few years ago (or linked here; I don't remember which) showed that for most programs, money was already flowing from the institution to athletics; not the other way around. Adding the cost of athletes' salaries could become prohibitive to the financial health of many schools.

Joined: 09/15/2009

MGoPoints: 35773

September 8th, 2015 at 4:32 PM ^

I totally agree it isn't as simple as my post makes it seem to be. However, I would like to see some figures as to how much money a University makes when they remove the "paying ourselves" portion. If memory serves (and it frequently serves me wrong) that was a point that came up during the O'Bannon case and the judge could never fully get over the fact that the schools are paying themselves, and then saying they aren't making any money... because they paid themself.

Joined: 09/03/2008

MGoPoints: 1570

abolden05

September 8th, 2015 at 4:29 PM ^

If schools had to pay players then the money would just come by decreasing the budgets for staffs, recruiting, and new construction. Schools could easily reduce these costs and end years in the black, but they choose to spend every dollar that they are projected to make.

Joined: 02/17/2012

MGoPoints: 327

Wolverine Devotee

September 8th, 2015 at 3:46 PM ^

There's no way they're ever going to be able to pay just football and men's basketball players and not every athlete.

You'd have to pay everyone, and then schools would be dropping sports left and right, thus ruining college sports.

Joined: 06/29/2009

MGoPoints: 31528

September 8th, 2015 at 3:48 PM ^

You must be a lawyer who has spent years studying labor laws.

Joined: 03/26/2011

MGoPoints: 7962

gwkrlghl

September 8th, 2015 at 8:20 PM ^

I think it's a compelling question because where do you stop?

Do you only pay D1 football & basketball players?
Only D1 revenue 'revenue' sports?
All D1 athletes?
What about D2 and D3? NAIA?

It's not cut and dry. If the argument is that some schools make too much money, then what about FBS schools that are bleeding money? Should football players have to return money at EMU? Not a simple solution

Joined: 04/13/2012

MGoPoints: 72

September 8th, 2015 at 3:56 PM ^

I can argue that any 1 player doesn't have that much value, let alone non-revenue athletes.

Wal-Mart employees get considerably less in compensation than NCAA football players. Only their money is liquid, cold hard cash. Student-athletes get $20k/year in tuition. $10k/year in room. $10k/year in food, clothing, etc. And they are getting trained to be elite athletes. They are getting trained to make huge money at the pros or as coaches or athletic experts.

They get a fine deal, in my opinion. Now, if you can somehow prevent greddy McGreederson from making extra money off of bowl games and things like that, well, that would be nice.

Joined: 03/26/2010

MGoPoints: 15128

ijohnb

September 8th, 2015 at 4:00 PM ^

think it holds up. I think 20 years ago that argument holds up. The money generated from college football has made the inequity too large to reconcile.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

west2

September 8th, 2015 at 4:48 PM ^

is the fact that its the brand, the venue and organization that generates the money not the players. the players are interchangeable. Employees usually don't share in the profits of the corporations they work for either as they didn't participate in the building of the enterprise. College football players are getting an incredible experience something many would pay money for. On top of it they get a free education from a premier institution. Paying 18-22 years to play college football is ridiculous and the notion that they are entitled to profits would be laughable at any other business.

Joined: 01/23/2011

MGoPoints: -998175

Honk if Ufer M…

September 8th, 2015 at 7:19 PM ^

"missing though is the fact that its the brand, the venue and organization that generates the money not the players. the players are interchangeable."

Bullshit. It was great players & coaches that built up "the brand" It's just a coincidence that good teams get more seats filled than bad teams?

It's a coincidence that Yale generally plays in front of 55 or 60+ thousand empty seats & 12 to 20 thousand people & Michigan fills up the bigger stadium that copied the Yale Bowl?

Yale built a big stadium when they were a power, now they're long no longer a power but there must be some other reason the stadium is empty.

Why don't we just swap rosters with Yale for the next 20 years since the players are interchangeable and see what happens to attendance, merchandise sales, radio contracts and the Big Ten TV contracts.

"Employees usually don't share in the profits of the corporations they work for either as they didn't participate in the building of the enterprise."

You mean like professional athletes? Not only is saying that kind of like pointing out that slaves didn't get paid either, or pointing out any other unjust or crooked system as a justification for having another crooked system, but players are not just "employees" they are also the product!

Also, employees still get paid wages or salaries even without sharing the profits and the "profits" are arbitrary fictions designed by those at the top who decide what is salary and what is profit!

Do you seriously think there's a logical and honest correlation between value to the operation that makes the profit and the pay or profit to those in the operation who cause or allow it to be made anyway?

Companies can't function or make money without workers and sports can't function or make money without players and none of them, even the highest paid pro team sport athletes, get what they're worth compared to the value they create. There would be no such thing as profit if that were not true.

Who among the coaches, AD or the rest that get paid participated in building the enterprise of any of the revenue sports at Michigan or the athletic department at Michigan or Michigan itself? None of those people are even remotely close to still being alive and most of them were dead before most living Michigan fans were born!

Also, the university is not a fucking corporation Mr. Brandon, it just acts like one!

"College football players are getting an incredible experience something many would pay money for. On top of it they get a free education from a premier institution. Paying 18-22 years to play college football is ridiculous and the notion that they are entitled to profits would be laughable at any other business."

Whatever dude, that's garbage in so many ways.

Why can't you be content watching high school or pee wee football and basketball then where there isn't such a level of profiteering? Because the talent level isn't there for the sport to be entertaining enough for you to invest your time, money and interest in it the way you do for Michigan.

At Michigan the talent level of Michigan and their opponents has been high enough overall to entice you and your money, and ours, to be spent, totaling as much as a professional team generates or more.

So pay for the product, pay for the worker. Even prostitutes get a little bit of the money their customers pay for their services! Don't advocate giving it ALL to the pimps!!!!

Joined: 02/22/2015

MGoPoints: 591

September 8th, 2015 at 7:56 PM ^

I agree that it's the teams/brand that really is the revenue generator, with very rare exceptions.

Obviously, better teams = better revenue. So, I understand the argument that better players should be proportionately compensated. But still, no single player in the game of football can make a team great or, for the sake of this argument, make a program generate measurably more revenue than they would otherwise.*

A collection of many great players do that. Who is responsible for bringing those players together? The coaches, which is why they are paid so much. I'm actually ok with coaches being paid that much because - surprise - they're all former players. They wouldn't be coaching and making millions without their player experience.

And better teams do get compensated in ways other teams don't. Better training for future playing career. Better facilities to play/live/study in. Rewards (championship rings, better bowl travel, bowl gift swag bags [which are insane, BTW]). The average Division 1 football player is getting the best value imaginable. It's that 0.1% that you can argue should get more. Let them sell autographs and there you go.

*Denard Robinson, for example, is the rare exception.

Joined: 03/26/2010

MGoPoints: 15128

Ronnie Kaye

September 8th, 2015 at 4:37 PM ^

Anyone else snicker that Wal-Mart was brought up in a point being made to WD?

Joined: 05/09/2015

MGoPoints: 104

September 8th, 2015 at 4:45 PM ^

No.

Joined: 03/26/2011

MGoPoints: 7962

BornInAA

September 8th, 2015 at 4:04 PM ^

Yes they can. You just make do. Maybe big stadiums don't need to get big new jumbotrons to outdo the next guy. Michigan staudium renovation was 226M. If there are 4000 student atheletesyou could give them $10k each for 4 years fro 160M. The money is there, it just goes into new buildings at the big campuses.

Joined: 11/21/2009

MGoPoints: 14478

ijohnb

September 8th, 2015 at 4:08 PM ^

in four years, paying one class of athletes 10 grand per year would cost nearly the same as a renovation the effects of which will last for 50+ years and you think that suggests that money would not be an issue with paying athletes? I am not quite sure I follow that.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

BornInAA

September 8th, 2015 at 4:16 PM ^

Just saying the money is there - not saying it should be used to pay athletes.

Joined: 11/21/2009

MGoPoints: 14478

Everyone Murders

September 8th, 2015 at 3:52 PM ^

I love EDSBS and think Orson is a great writer, but man people love to oversimplify this issue. "Just pay them" is gratifying to say, but where are the details? It reminds me of Karl Marx's Das Kapital. It really is a brilliant bring-down of some serious flaws with capitalism. It's not so good at prescriptive solutions.

Is the idea to pay all players the same? Is it to pay scholarship players at one level, and non-scholarship players at another? What if you have a superstar - does he get paid at a premium level? What about lesser-revenue sports like hockey? What about non-revenue sports where people work their asses off, like wrestling or track?

I certainly would like to see stipends for all athletes increased, and there's already some movement in that direction. I would not be against having a paid (non-college) farm system for those that want to go that way (seems to work for hockey). To me, this is the simplest solution, but may not be feasible.

I have yet to see the comprehensive plan that will redistribute the wealth equitably among student athletes. But people love to say "just pay them". It's easy to say that (and mean it) - it's a lot more difficult to come up with a workable and fair solution.

/ducks/

Joined: 12/14/2010

MGoPoints: 65552

ijohnb

September 8th, 2015 at 3:53 PM ^

them by the touchdown. Bet you Chesson turns on the burners and stetches out for that TD next time.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

Everyone Murders

September 8th, 2015 at 4:15 PM ^

I like the "keep up with our Southern peers vibe here"! Maybe payment on a per helmet sticker basis?

(I kid - the whole payment issue is a thorny one. It is undeniably distressing to see all this money flow in to everyone in increasing amounts except for the players. I get the frustration part of this. But I still don't know how to solve it, and haven't heard a really good solution to the issue. [And then factor in Title IX if you really want to get a headache - and I like Title IX.] I do like the way the hockey and baseball worlds work, where if your prime motivator is to get paid now more so than get an education, there's a route available for a young athlete. But the NFL seems to like the world the way it is.)

Joined: 12/14/2010

MGoPoints: 65552

ijohnb

September 8th, 2015 at 4:17 PM ^

Darboh played a $90,000 game on Thursday!

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

Honk if Ufer M…

September 8th, 2015 at 8:04 PM ^

Boy it sure is bizarre how many problems people seem to find whenever it comes time to think about paying workers... the ones who produce the money. It's so damn hard to figure out how to distribute to those who earn it!

How in the fuck would they have figured out how much to pay slave children compared to the adults if they had paid them? Impossible to figure out, so, you know, keep the status quo.

Do the slave women they rape get paid more than those they don't? Well shit that problem is so vexing we just better keep them as slaves rather than employees! Man yer makin ma head hurt with these conundrums!

Do you pay the survivors more when you kill one of the slaves and still expect the family to do the same amount of work? That's a tough one, forget the pay thing then, too complicated! Can't possibly be figured out! Thank fucking dog we can find people to do rocket science and cure Polio at least!!!!

Has one single person in American history, outside of any athletic department or whomever else in a school is involved in these decisions, ever spent a nanosecond thinking about or worrying about how on dogs green earth the athletic departments of America can possibly figure out how to pay all the people in the athletic departments, and all the contractors they hire for various things, in a rational, sensible & equitable manner?

No, not one person who has ever raised objections to paying players for those reasons has given a fraction of a single shit or a fraction of a single second, thinking about who should or shouldn't get paid how much anywhere in the whole operation!

What level of detail do you have on how much was spent on what specific things for each sport and each coach and staff member on each team, and have you calculated that according to how much each sport costs and brings in? Any of you?

How do those calculation mesh with your figuring for athletic department secretaries, accountants, janitors, maintenance people, architects, designers, gardeners, landscapers, sign painters, recruiting coordinators, team moms, photographers, & web designers, etc. etc. etc.?

Is it all in proper order & there has never been a thing to complain about or worry about over the course of your every waking moment thus far in your life? Is that why you've never commented on it outside of occasionally talking about what a head coach or defensive coordinator makes?

Have we really figured out that everyone's actual contributions to the whole thing have been fairly compensated and that we haven't over paid one architect and underpaid another one, or that the mens bball recruiting coordinator is getting the same proportional share of bball revenue that the fb RC gets of his revenue?

Is the balance of pay between recruiting coordinators and NCAA rules compliance directors where it should be? How in the fuck do they possibly figure those things out and why aren't you concerned?

Does the athletic department ask for volunteers to do various things at the venues of the games? Yes. Do they ask for volunteer student assistants and graduate assistants? Yes. Are there other volunteers doing things for the athletic department? I don't know, but I bet there are, and that many of you know about them or are them.

Could they or would they run those programs or the department without the tasks the volunteers do being done? I don't know if they could, but I bet they wouldn't.

So who sets the cutoff between what the paid positions are the & the unpaid? Is there not enough money to skim off the high salaries and plenty of the pretty high ones in order to pay for more of the workers? Of course.

Do they have the money to pay for all of the workers without even lowering anyone else? Of course! Do you care? Have you ever cared? Have you ever considered the quandaries like that to be a reason for not paying anyone in the athletic department since it's all so complicated?

If it's too complicated to pay players it's too complicated to pay coaches, athletic directors and everyone else among the thousands who they figure out a way to pay in the department, come hell or high water.

I will bet my life that there are some number of stadium workers, from ticket takers to ushers and maintenance people, electricians and plumbers, without whose work and job functions we couldn't legally even have the stadium open, and couldn't safely run it, or practically run it, AND, that there are at least a hundred, and probably many, many more people somewhere in the athletic department who get paid more, or a lot more than those people, even though the department would get along fine, and the games could certainly still go on, without their very existence or their roles being performed!

If the game is ruined for you if it doesn't call itself amateur, even while you (the other poster who made that point and those that feel that way) openly admit that you know it's a farce, fine, then make it amateur all the way around. There is not a single job that actually needs to be done within the athletic department, from the AD and coaches, down to every job that gets done, that we wouldn't be able to find a surplus of wildly enthusiastic volunteers for!!!!

Either don't allow the games to be broadcast at all, or don't allow advertising of any sort during the entire broadcasts, including pre and post game, and don't charge for tickets so that there is no money coming in to the sport. THEN talk to me about the ideals of giving scholarships so that athletes can get an education and so they can compete for the joy and beauty of the games, and school spirit. THEN tell me how all the coaches and AD's are just there for the betterment of these young student athletes!

You could also pay A.D. employees the cost of a scholarship at that school, plus room and board like the players get, since that's a perfectly fair deal according to the "don't pay them" crowd.

As for the concerns about paying players equally, or paying players across different sports equally, regardless of revenue, why is that harder than how much to pay coaches of different sports?

Outside of football, mens basketball, hockey & baseball, every other sport probably loses money, yet they still pay the coaches and staff in those sports. Shouldn't those coaches actually being paying to coach here in order to make up for the losses? No?

Well then there must be a way to figure out how to pay all players, or to not pay all players but to only pay players in revenue sports. But then don't pay any coaches or staff on non revenue sports.

The only argument anyone has against paying players that even has the potential to be partially valid, is the $ value of the scholarships.

But what percentages of money sport players are truly qualified to do the work of getting a degree, and one that is likely to get them a job or career that pays them more than they would've made without the degree, over time, equal to or greater than the cost of the schooling? And if all it did was equal it, then were they ever actually being compensated at all in any monetary form?

What percentage are actually are interested in college, or would be going at all, or going to that school, if it weren't for the need to go to school in order to play?

What percentage of college players would rather get paid in a minor league if there were one?

If there are players that are just getting by in school by hook or by crook in order to stay eligible, and have little real ability to take advantage of the education, would he or his family be better off that way, or by getting the choice to take the value of the scholarship in cash? So why not at the very least give every player a choice to take the education or the cash?

Do you lose your appreciation of the diag when you think about the fact that the lawn care people are paid mercenaries and not volunteer student gardeners?

The university hires thousands of people to work for it and contract for it, and they perform functions that better the university or it's grounds, or the experience of being here one way or another.

Would it really be so terrible to your viewing and cheering experiences if the bulk of profit made off of the sport went to the players rather than to the thousand adults surrounding the program? You've never heard of most of those getting paid, none of whom have scored a touchdown or made a basket or painted a field or let you in the gates!

Would you break down and cry if coaches & administrators had to make regular university employee salaries, or high school coaching salaries or high school math teacher salaries, instead of being the highest paid employees in the state, dwarfing governors and state lawmakers, in order to pay players instead, regardless of the unbearable problems of figuring out the best way to allocate the funds?

Or, if instead of paying players, their salaries were limited in that way in order to eliminate most of the hypocrisy of not paying players?

Joined: 02/22/2015

MGoPoints: 591

September 8th, 2015 at 3:47 PM ^

There is just one part of this that I disagree with:

The networking they might have done with others on campus is restricted by their class schedules and practice

It may be slightly correct that the time spent networking is reduced, but put "Division I College Football Player" on your resume and see how many more prospective employers knock on your door.

Joined: 03/26/2011

MGoPoints: 7962

September 8th, 2015 at 3:49 PM ^

"It may be slightly correct that the time spent networking is reduced, but put "Division I College Football Player" on your resume and see how many more prospective employers knock on your door."

.. Do they come knocking though? Outside of maybe certain sales spots for certain players... I don't think that being a D1 College Football Player is going to be the door opener you think it is.

Joined: 09/03/2008

MGoPoints: 1570

September 8th, 2015 at 3:57 PM ^

Maybe, maybe not. But everyone in that ADept. is in their network automatically. That's a lot more people than my math department.

Joined: 03/26/2010

MGoPoints: 15128

September 8th, 2015 at 4:00 PM ^

Yep, might as well just leave it off the resume. What a waste of space to put on there.

I probably wouldn't know though. I'm just a regular, non-sportsy guy

Joined: 03/26/2011

MGoPoints: 7962

September 8th, 2015 at 4:02 PM ^

Yup.. that's exactly what I said with my response... that it's a waste of space...

Joined: 09/03/2008

MGoPoints: 1570

September 8th, 2015 at 4:06 PM ^

" Outside of maybe certain sales spots for certain players... I don't think that being a D1 College Football Player is going to be the door opener you think it is."

^ <blockquote>

You said that unless I were to be attempting to recieve a sales spot (as a certain player...whatever that might mean...)... That being a "D1 College Football Player" is not a door opener...Unless you were assuming that I meant that having played college football means that you don't have to have any other qualifications for anything.

Joined: 03/26/2011

MGoPoints: 7962

September 8th, 2015 at 4:09 PM ^

I simply said that it's not a door opener you apparently think it is. That doesn't in-turn mean I don't think it will help open any doors and is a worthless thing. Just not the number of doors your post seemed to imply.

Joined: 09/03/2008

MGoPoints: 1570

September 8th, 2015 at 4:46 PM ^

How many doors was I implying? Because it seems that you are implying that it will only open doors for certain sales positions.

I think you would have a hard time convincing me that if you took two identical resumes, and one said "Division I Collegiate Athlete" and the other did not, the two would garner equal interest by a recruiter/hiring manager?

Anyway, mostly I have just been in a very arduous meeting since this morning, and am probably crabby about a lack of sleep/food/entertainment.

Joined: 03/26/2011

MGoPoints: 7962

jmblue

September 8th, 2015 at 4:00 PM ^

This may not be true for every school, but we certainly have generous alumni who like to hire ex-players. The networking opportunities are substantial.

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102736

Darker Blue

September 8th, 2015 at 3:53 PM ^

This is such a tricky situation.

If you pay a football player or a Men's Hoops player then you have to pay the Women's fencing team or water polo team.

I don't know if there is enough money to go around. (There probably is)

What happens to the schools without HUGE Athletic Dept's (like MICH)? They aren't going to be able to pay their players. So a bunch of teams will fold.

I do feel that college football and basketball players bring a ton of money in for their universities and for the NCAA. So they probably deserve more than what they're getting.

TL:DR I have no fucking idea what should be done.

Joined: 10/30/2011

MGoPoints: 80450