In light of the SI agent story, should players be paid a stipend?
You know this story is bound, at some point, to reignite a debate over whether players should be paid a stipend of sorts. Among the arguments in favor is that it would put the brakes on this kind of behavior; TMQ even said so today in his column, and that was before today's little bombshell came out.
I've never been in favor of paying players, as they already receive something that far exceeds the value of what is received by 100% of their fellow students: even academic scholarship types don't receive free health care. The arguments against the idea are extensive.
Still, as people come to realize how widespread the agent practice is after reading the Luchs article, they might be more in favor. I say the article is further proof that it would never work - stipends wouldn't shut off the flow of money one bit. Kanavis McGhee asked for $2,500 - that's well over $4,000 in today's money. A year's worth of stipends. Agents have bottomless pockets for this kind of stuff if they think they can snag a player. The only reason they only pay $5,000 is because the player doesn't ask for $10,000. Look at what was given to the UNC players:
The value of benefits received by Little was $4,952 while the value of benefits received by Quinn was $5,642, according to facts submitted by North Carolina.
Little received diamond earrings, travel accommodations in the Bahamas and Washington, D.C., and two trips to Miami. Quinn accepted two black diamond watches, a pair of matching earrings and travel accommodations for a trip to Miami.
Stipends are no match for black diamond watches and a trip to the Bahamas.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:24 PM ^
Then the NFL should be paying the players a stipend, just like MLB pays minor leaguers. The question was not about NFL v. NCAA. The question was should players be paid a stipend?
October 12th, 2010 at 10:27 PM ^
October 12th, 2010 at 10:32 PM ^
Because the NFL profits from their future players getting 3 years of practice and no coaching at no cost to them. These are players who sacrifice a lot and most of them get chewed up and spit out by the machine, while the NFL rakes in millions upon millions. Baseball is doing just fine with their minor leagues, I think it is reasonable to hope that the NFL would pay a stipend to the players it profits off of and the ones who get chewed up by the system they support.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:36 PM ^
October 12th, 2010 at 11:31 PM ^
If things are not fucked up enough now, that will certainly fix it.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:00 AM ^
I think that has been the issue of previous lawsuits. The NCAA is the defacto minor league of the NFL.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^
NSFMF...they're choosing to go to school because many are not ready for the NFL. Most do not have skills that would make money on the open market. It's exactly like any other student that goes to school to learn a trade and then goes out and gets a job after 4 years of training. If I could make enough money to support a family one day without paying to go to college, I would...unfortunately, I can't, so it's off to school for me.
EDIT: beaten to the punch 4 times over! +1s all around, we have vanquished our foe!
October 12th, 2010 at 10:20 PM ^
Some of them are choosing this. The others are shoehorned into an arrangement that they had no say in. AJ Green could have played in the NFL this year, what if he gets a career ending injury this Saturday? Is he protected? No. But he was forced to accept this contract that he was not able to negotiate.
October 12th, 2010 at 11:32 PM ^
And then he would be able to complete his college degree at no charge and be far better off than 99 percent of college grads who leave school with a large amount of debt. They get paid. Just not in the way you think they should be. And they are not forced to accept any contract. As a matter of fact most of them are dying to hold a press conference to announce where they will go play.
October 12th, 2010 at 11:40 PM ^
You know, I'm a really good future Engineer. I'm in college right now and they aren't paying me, even though I could go to work at a company and make $80,000 a year if only they would hire me without a degree. I'm going to go to the financial aid office and try and "negotiate my contract". Since I'm not able to get a job with my dream company somebody should be paying for my skills!
October 13th, 2010 at 3:00 AM ^
You're missing the point. If you were an Aeronautical Engineer prodigy, and somehow you made a huge advancement in your field (let's say you invented a full up jet turbine that can run for hours on a gallon of fuel while spewing rainbows as exhaust). I'm sure Boeing, GE, Lockheed Martin, BAE, Airbus etc. would hire you, degree be damned. No offense, but you just aren't that good at what you do yet.
Meanwhile, Marcus Lattimore is trucking SEC defenses AS A TRUE FRESHMAN. You're telling me that he's less ready than however many senior RB's will be drafted this year? Why does he have to stay in school for 3 years, making zero legitimate dollars along the way? If it were an open market, he probably would have been drafted out of high school. So why can't he choose to be in the NFL?
I mean, the current system is something like if Boeing dominated the Aerospace market so thoroughly that they could make up whatever rules they wanted regarding hiring. Sure, you could drop out and go work for random foreign competitor (CFL/Airbus) but the pay is shit, the hours are long, and people speak French. So, its great that you invented this awesome new jet engine, but you're going to have to stay in school a few more years to earn the big bucks.
October 13th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^
Who says he has to stay in school? Why can't he go to the CFL or work out on his own for two years? Why is there this notion that if someone has a skill, they have the inherent right to earn zillions of dollars for it?
The NFL's and NBA's requirement for being out of high school is a different debate, but the problem is people always make it about the Kobe Bryants and Kevin Garnetts of the world. Really, it should be about the Korleone Youngs.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:45 AM ^
This is a joke. They don't have the choice of playing professionally. The NFLPA bars them from it till 3 years after their high school class has graduated. The only other game in town is one in which everybody gets rich except the players.
October 13th, 2010 at 2:31 PM ^
Except that very few athletic departments actually make money. We are a rare exception (and even we now have to pay off a massive debt for the stadium renovation). Just providing a free education, room and board, and training for college athletes is costing most athletic departments an arm and a leg.
October 13th, 2010 at 3:03 PM ^
I'm not saying all athletes should get paid, but I think some should.
October 13th, 2010 at 9:58 AM ^
It is an open market and they are welcome to take their skills to any football league they like. Unfortunately for them the NFL is far and away the most vastly superior football league so practically speaking they don't have much choice.
The bigger question is, why does an America that claims to be a bastion of free choice and open markets so actively support a monopoly (the NFL) in one of its favorite activities? You would think that in such a large, football crazy country that there would be dozens of football leagues.
October 12th, 2010 at 9:53 PM ^
I say yes. I know they get free school and food, but they can't work because of sports so they should get a little money on the side. Not all of their parents can afford to give them money to go out.
October 12th, 2010 at 11:42 PM ^
They already do get money on the side. Anyone know how much room and board costs at UM? I know guys in the late 90's early 2000's at a MAC school were getting checks for over a grand every month. I'd imagine the cost of living at UM is a bit higher than say Toledo or BGSU. I'd bet these guys are getting checks for over $1500 every month. Yeah, it's not great money, but certainly enough to buy some extra things.
October 12th, 2010 at 9:54 PM ^
I don't care what anyone says, they get a free education, room, food, healthcare, and a few bucks extra. Not sure how paying them would even work out. The biggest schools with the most alumni cash coming in would dominate.........nevermind, let's pay them.
October 12th, 2010 at 9:54 PM ^
The get free meal plans and tuition and tutors because of the value they provide the university. If Michigan didn't think they were getting their money's worth, they wouldn't do it. I think players should be paid somehow because it's not as if they can go to the NFL. That market is closed off to them. If we, as a society, are okay with denying these players the ability to make the maximum from their talents, then it is hypocritical to suggest that they should go to class, practice many hours, travel around the country and still earn side income.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:10 PM ^
fantastic until you get to the end and he changes tonality and glosses over the reasons he got canned as an agent.
Throwing all those people under the bus because he could not hang with the big dogs who told him he could not play the same way he did when he was Doc Daniels protege.
I hope he has enough cash left to hire protection.
"I gave the check to my lawyer" = "The dog ate my homework"
Howeva, the article proves Ryan Leaf is still a dick.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:07 PM ^
They don't pay for anything at college. I'm sorry but they don't need anymore money. If there good enough they'll go on and make a lot more.....
Their education, food, housing- All free. Its like they're being paid 25k a year already....
October 12th, 2010 at 10:10 PM ^
Sure, if that's what the player wants. But what if he also won an academic scholarship to Southeast Georgia Valley A&M and he doesn't need that. Why can't he negotiate his own contract for money, and send his sister to college?
October 12th, 2010 at 10:15 PM ^
If you don't like the compensation then don't take the job.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:23 PM ^
The same thing that was said to poor miners in the 19th century. I really thought we had accepted the ability to negotiate a contract as a basic right for employees in the past 100 years.
October 12th, 2010 at 11:42 PM ^
To compare modern day college athletes to the miners of the 19th century is a joke. Is it not also the right of the "employer" to offer a contract and say take it or leave it? And not to compare football players to soldiers but I have it on good authority they don't get to negotiate their contracts either.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:46 AM ^
When I joined the Army, I was able to negotiate with a recruiter what job I wanted, where I wanted to live, and how much my signing bonus was. They offered me $6,000 to be an MP, $40,000 to be EOD. I took MP and the 6 grand with the guarantee I would get one of my top 3 duty stations. When It came time for me to re-enlist I negotiated a $20,000 dollar re-up bonus and a school for training I wanted to attend. I ended up declining the offer to become a civilian again but soldiers have the ability to negotiate their contract.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:10 AM ^
While you are correct that in the military you get the opportunity to negotiate your contract there is no guarantee. When you sign on the line to "your terms" those are only kept up until the military runs out of room or believes you're a better fit somewhere else. You are in fact property of the government and while recruiters typically get you your dream job it can be switched as I'm sure you've witnessed. You will get whatever signing bonus you agreed to but not necessarily the job. Also in your contract is the clause that you can be kept indefinitely if the government signs certain acts to keep you. When I was in the Marines many a pissed off jarheads were kept way over their end time service date after 9/11.
I've always been fond of when guys would accidentally get really sunburned and get punished for "damage to government property"
October 13th, 2010 at 3:48 PM ^
Those are bonuses, not your salary. Your salary was determined by Congress and it was take it or leave it. There's no negotiating of yearly raises, and even re-enlistment bonuses (at least in the Navy) are determined by a formula, not negotiation.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:16 PM ^
Cash, scholarship or give the scholarship to your sibling etc. This would save us all from the bullshit of players like John Wall. I think he attended like 6 hrs, of which 6hrs was sports management or something pathetic.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:11 PM ^
You can make good arguments for both sides, but I guess I fall on the side that these guys do receive tuition, room+board, clothing, etc. all free, which is a significant financial gain. Paying them in addition would seem a bit excessive, though I do think the players should receive a cut from their likeness being used to sell jerseys, video games, etc. I'm not sure how you compute that, but if Denard Robinson's jersey sells for $55 and the MDen sells out every Saturday, it seems strange that he does not receive some cut of that profit.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:20 PM ^
October 13th, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^
I understand that there are no official jerseys with a name on the back (that said, people can add it after the fact). But right now, I doubt anyone is buying the #16 now to retroactively show support for Brent Washington, Rudy Smith, John Navarre, Adrian Arrington, or a freshman Roy Roundtree. I know that enforcement might be difficult, and I'm not saying they deserve a 50/50 cut, but it also troubles me when the University can make hundreds of thousands in jersey sales relating to individual players.
October 13th, 2010 at 9:34 AM ^
Oh please. That's like saying the QB #16 in NCAA '11 could be any random #16 in Michigan history, rather than Denard. Except for #1, there aren't that many jersey numbers that enough different big time players have worn to be able to legitimately say you're not singling one out specifically. "What, this #2 jersey? Charles Woodson? Never heard of him. This is my authentic 2008 Sam McGuffie jersey!"
October 13th, 2010 at 10:09 AM ^
Ok, let's say hypothetically the player does get revenue from his jersey sales because "hey, it's all him". But then the kid decides to transfer after a year, should he now be on the hook financially for all of those jerseys that were printed up but are now worthless because the stores can't sell them? Or what if the kid does something dumb and ends up in jail forcing the stores to pull all of the jerseys? These kid want to live by the financial sword but they can die by it too.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:16 PM ^
Yes, but only if they win
October 12th, 2010 at 10:22 PM ^
October 12th, 2010 at 11:43 PM ^
My wife was a full ride athlete at a MAC school and her room and board check was more than enough for us to pay rent and eat. The idea that they don't get paid is a joke. Just because their full compensation is in the form of cash doesn't mean they are not compensated well.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:23 PM ^
A stipend would constitute a employer/employee relationship; that would be too complicated. Worse yet, it would make Title IX even more onerous than it already is.
I have suggested all along that players be allowed to get whatever income they can get from whoever wants to pay them. Agents, Joe's Automobile Lot, golden handshakes, whatever: a cut of the jerseys with their names on them would be nice, too. Players should be allowed to accept gifts from whoever wants to "gift" them.
The prevailing "wisdom" on the matter is that the rich would get richer. In reality, they already are. And teams like TCU, SMU, and OK ST would be able to get back into the game with their wealthy donors.
Better yet, Michigan would no longer be competing on an uneven playing field with the OSU's, USC's, and Bamas of the world. It sounds like everybody would win here.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:26 PM ^
I was with you until you suggested that Michigan was somehow better than OSU and the other big programs. That's ridiculously naive.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:32 PM ^
He's quite the homer.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:35 PM ^
True. I really should have expected that.
October 12th, 2010 at 10:29 PM ^
I think the only way that it would work would be if it were a private entity as part of a private amateur league -- e.g., can you imagine an amateur league matchup between the The Columbus Rubes and The East Lansing Absconders?
October 13th, 2010 at 3:11 AM ^
Speaking as an aside from the "Should players be paid?" debate, you should never, ever reference TMQ.
In no particular order, Easterbrook: hates on Rich Rod, hates the spread, is waaaaay creepier than Pat Forde about random hot girl pics, disagrees with many subject matter experts on the topics he writes about, seemingly thinks there's nothing wrong with the odd concussion or two in football (apparently he's changed his mind about this), and is kind of an anti-Semite, maybe.
I don't hate on ESPN often, but Gregg Easterbrook is in my troikaof evil along with Pam Ward and New Rick Reilly.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:30 AM ^
Absolutely players should get a stipend. It's not like they can get jobs with the amount of time they devote to their sports and school. And for those who think a scholarship is enough, if that was truly their market value then schools wouldn't have to guard against boosters or agents giving them special perks on top of that.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:00 AM ^
So how about a compromise. The schools are making tons of money off of jersey sales. Now I know that there aren't names on the jersey's but you can't tell me that #16 sales aren't high right now. So what if there's a contract say 40 percent of jersey sales goes to the player but only after he completes his time in school. Whenever he chooses to leave if it's after he gets a degree or leaves for the NFL. Any student found in violation of team or NCAA rules forfeits all monies.
Secondly, go after the agents harshly. First offense suspension for one year. Second you're banned. There has to be some way that agents are scared to deal early with athletes.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:25 AM ^
If stipends were being paid it would reduce one of the competitive advantages Michigan has in recruiting. The value of a Michigan degree is far greater than the value of degrees from other institutions because of the quality of education, access to alumni, and even starting salaries upon graduation. If other universities could compensate by paying recruits then the value would equalize over time.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:51 PM ^
Let's not be ridiculous. We all love Michigan but you can still get a fantastic education at North Carolina, Florida, Wisconsin, Texas, UCLA etc.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:52 AM ^
commodification/commercialization of everything is not always more commercialization/commodification. Players already reap a lot of benefits.
I would like to see all athletes assured a chance to finish their degrees, however; I know that they have that at some schools, but I'm not sure it's universal.
I would work harder to keep agents away from players, myself. And I think that this has to begin with coaches and the sporting community, since they tend to reap benefits--including feeling important--from such associations, too.