Wow. Stupid. So long college sports as we know it.
Tennessee is not recruiting well just because they got 18 dudes
Wow. Stupid. So long college sports as we know it.
Yeah, its "stupid" that the athletes will finally be able to band together and have a tiny bit of leverage against the NCAA. Hopefully the athletes can use this to get a better education or a slice of the billions upon billions the NCAA brings in. Change needed to happen and was/is inevitable.
All atheltes or the 20-30 that actually generate the revenue for the school?
I agree that those that make the $ should get paid, but what will happen to all the athletes (great majority) that do not generate revenue and so far have been subsidized by the few (for top D1 schools this means the football team stars and to some extent other starters) that do? Do we end scholarships for non-revenue generating athletes? Do we give Denard $1M cause he generated so much for the school and make kickers pay their way? Not taking a stance here, just a big reason why I have swayed back and forth on this topic.
Or do we charge non-athete students more to subsidize those scholarships (hope no)? The money has to come from somewhere, and we still will need to maintain and improve facilities and hire top coaches if we want to continue to attract the top athletes for the football team which generates the revenue. If the union decides to go on strike can the school kick out all the players and bring on an entire new recruiting class in their place?
That's what negociations are for. This gives them a seat at the table. I don't see how anyone can be against that.
It's kind of like you are saying you aren't in favor of democracy because foreign policy sounds complicated to you.
you a bunch of reasons why he's against it.
And no. This is not a democracy thing. No one is forcing these kids to play football.
student-athelete unionization : NCAA :: Democracy : Nation
You're taking the "if you don't like it here move to a different country" line when you say nobody is making them play football.
Thankfully the world doesn't always require the approval of people in power for change to happen. I'm sorry you've decided that only people in suits deserve a seat at the table.
I'd love to hear your grounds for how these kids are getting a raw deal.
Without football they could go to college the old fashioned way or just jump into a trade and make normal amounts of money like 99% of the population. Instead, they get 100's of thousands of dollars worth of education, medical care, and swag, not to mention a prominent seat in the good ol boy network after college in terms of landing a great job. What table do these kids need a seat at?
Up until now, there hasn't been a need for a table. Guess someone will have to go get one...
And no one is really arguing that they are getting a raw deal. They are getting a disproportionate deal. What's wrong with them wanting more? Money in college sports has skyrocketed. So its crazy that they want a little bit more?
And give me a break on the "landing a job at the good ol boy network." Thousands of athletes graduate or leave every year. There's only a couple dozen analyst jobs and only a couple new ones open a year.
It doesn't bother me that they want to fight for a little more money given the huge revenues involved. What does bother me is the way so many people talk about it like they're getting absolutely nothing, ignoring the potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars they get in tuition and room and board, and the millions more that they get in total future earning potential relative to the lifetime earnings they would get without a college education.
they get dumped a year or two in when their grey-shirting, medical-wavering SEC coach finds a higher-rated recruit, finds them in violation of "team rules," and pulls the plug on their supposed sweet deal before it even really gets started.
All the ususal buzz indicates to me that college-level sports is a de-facto full time job, and that with the exception of the uphill struggle of an occasional Jordon Morgan (remember Hand advised not to pursue his chosen major at UM because it is inconsistent with the time required for football), most of them only get time to "play" school anyway.
I'm interested to see if anyone who has actually competed under full scholarship thinks athletes are actually raking in the millions.
I don't think the word "network" was used above by Ibpeley in reference to media networks such as ESPN, NBC, CBS, FoxSports, BTN, etc., but instead along the lines of "networking" or using one's connections to get a foot in the door when looking for better-paying jobs.
It doesn't matter to me whether their situation is described as a raw deal or not. If you're involved in an activity and you want to organize yourselves and designate someone to represent your interests I think that's a good thing. There are plenty of non-financial decisions, such as health and safety, that professional players' unions have a voice in that college atheletes do not.
It seems you only believe in organization if you can demonstrate you're suffering financially. I just find systems where everyone involved has a say to be more equitable. It's from that perspective that I can't understand why people are against the idea of student-athelete representation.
put it that way I see your point. I made the mistake of thinking everyone who's for this thinks the athletes are getting screwed financially, which I absolutely 100% disagree with.
Intelligent discussion. This is the Michigan difference right here. :)
I really want to upvote this, because it put into words how I feel. Thanks.
Right now athletes can't even get the ncaa to cover the cost of living increases in scholarships because indina state thinks that is what would put them at a competitive disadvantage. Being able to unionize doesn't mean getting paid and just like nobody is forcing any kids to play football nobody is forcing the school to charge money for tickets, sell the tv rights, etc. As long as schools see sports like football as sources of revenue the athletes should have the ability to make sure they aren't getting screwed and if that means enough money to go to the movies a couple times a month that seems fair to me. If it leads to players getting paid we will see what happens, there would be title 9 issues most likely but we can cross that bridge when it comes, that isn't this.
That's the same deal players have been getting for decades while Coaches, Conference Officials, TV Networks, Athletic Department Administrators, etc. have seen their compensation increase at astronomical rates. It's clear that as the money has increased, the majority of the people generating that money haven't seen their compensation increase. In the abstract, what players receive is a good deal. In reality, I find it hard to believe anyone can think they shouldn't be getting a better deal.
I find it humorous you think the players are being compensated disproportionately to the revenue coming in while everyone else is smoking cigars made out of $100 dollar bills. Have you seen the difference in college weight rooms today compared to 20 years ago? Pretty nice digs the kids get to hang out in now vs. then. All those people who keep the field in great shape and the bathrooms cleaned around the stadium, I bet their salaries have gone up over the past twenty years at a high rate than simple cost of living increases. The facilities the rowing team, the softball team, the gymnastics team, the two new lacrosse teams all get, that doesn't happen for free. Regarding the big salary for the AD? Do you have any idea how hard it is to be a full time fundraiser? It's not easy, even at a school like Michigan.
It's pretty easy to say everyone is getting rich except the players, but many people have worked hard to bring that money in and a lot of other people benefit from it every day. If you want to give all that money to the football players and say good luck to everyone else, well, that's one way to look at it.
I think it's great the players may get a say in how their health can be protected better. I think it's great the players may get a say in how the coaches should be able to contact them while being recruited as high school players. But to think this is a great opportunity for these poor athletes who have been so unfairly used and abused to finally get a piece of the pie, is very myopic.
That's what they have to figure out. And just because it might be hard and complicated doesn't mean they shouldn't do it or at least look into it. I think a system where the athletes get a slice of jersey sales or whatever would be a fair way to reward the stars. Personally, I would feel a lot better if I bought a Derrick Green jersey if I knew Derrick was getting like 2% of the profits from that. It would be a whole new way to support the athletes.
And there is already disparity between the sports. Tennis doesn't have the same facilities and resources the football team does. So giving your football or basketball players a larger slice of the pie wouldn't change much there at all.
All a union does is raise the possibility the NCAA may have to negotiate with the athletes. Prior to that, there was zero chance of that ever happening.
I like that proposal (athlete gets $ from their shirt sales), good idea
I didn't buy a Denard #16 jersey, I bought a Navarre #16 jersey. Make sure Navarre gets the compensation please.
What do you do in all but the roughly two dozen colleges that lose money on their sports progrms. I simply cannot imagine how things like long term health benefits aren't going to be very costly. That leaves schools various options, none of them good, such as cutting sports programs in revenue-losing sports (most of them as we all know) and, in the large majority of instances, raising student fees for kids alreayd strapped and staring at huge debt.
Maybe if they can't run a huge athletic department responsibly they shouldn't have a huge athletic department,
So if Michigan decides "we'll cut all non-revenue generating sports" would you like to take a guess as to how many kids lose scholarships?
Maybe the vast bulk of universities nationwide have this problem, because most lose money. It is the rare school, most of which have huge football stadiums who can run an athletic department that runs in the black.
to separate the money making sports from the subsidized sports.
For example, cross-country is an amatuer sport that is driven by the love of the sport. Football is driven by tens of millions of dollars in revenue. (There's no going back...water finds it's own level.)
The commitment/expectations of a cross country student-athlete should be different from the absolute devotion that is defacto demanded from a major power football or basketball or hockey player. And I don't see anything wrong with the football/basketball/hockey player getting his/her piece of the up to tens of millions in revenue like the football coaches do to the tune of ~$5 million/year.
This meme about the athletes working for free while Simon Legree and the billionaires at the NCAA twirl their mustaches and order hookers and laugh uproariously is frankly, not only mistaken and lazy IMO but just plain intellectually silly. The benefits to college athletes, most of which for other workers the IRS would recognize as wages and income, include:
1. At schools like Michigan, 50k a year or more in savings from the tuition and room and board they are not, nor ever, paying for. That is income.
2. Free health care
3. Their own food, free
4. Free transportation.
5. Graduating from school debt free for life
6. Unique facilities created just for them
7. Often, unique sleeping quarters just for them
8. In large sports often being treated far better on campus than regular students.
And there is more but that's enough for a post. I think all athletes should get a stipend of some kind and for stars, reimbursement after they graduate for jerseys with their name and number on it that are sold. But one thing is a fact: they are ALREADY paid, with ample benefits not available to the regular student, which is given to them in a free exchange for their labor. In other words, they enter a volunatary contract from which they receive benefits in exchange for their work. One might argue they "deserve" more, but you can't legitimately argue that they are taken advantage of.
Whether you or I think they deserve more is frankly irrelevant. it's up to the schools, NCAA and student athletes to determine this. now the student athletes have more leverage in that relationship, and in my opinion, that's a good thing.
They deserve to have a voice and now they have one.
Like said below, times have changed and it appears they are going to change again. The kids deserve to be there to discuss it.
Free health care?
The only 18-21 year olds who have health problems are high end athletes in sports related injuries. So I wouldn't use that as some massive benefit
While I agree they are not slave workers, and do receive compensation in the form of education, they are in no way compensated anywhere close to their value
It's not free labor, but it's cheap labor
That is a flaw in your argument. No way is the thid string back-up tackle as valuable as Jake Ryan or Devin Gardner. Why should a guy who contributes little to victory receive the same level of pay that a Gardner does?
Also, this will basicalyl destroy the MAC and other small schools. They don't have the budget to negotiate anything. I foresee schools dropping football or going to non-scholarship.
There's already a quickly growing divide between the power conferences and the MAC level conferences. Regardless of whether we start paying athletes, that chasm isn't going away. So they are already living on borrowed time. But they won't drop football or anything like that. D-II and D-III schools do just fine. They'll just have to stop trying to complete on a Big Ten/SEC playing field and live within their means so to speak.
There are 12 teams in the MAC. All of whom have 85 football scholarships to hand out because they are D-1. If the MAC goes to D-2 that is cut to 36. That's 588 kids who no longer have scholarships in just the MAC. The lesser schools/conferences going D-2 is bad for the players as a whole. This doesn't even consider other non-revenue spots which risk getting cut.
For each money maker there are 50 nobodys who might not be in college without their sport. Johnny Manziel isn't playing for his $100k scholarship he is playing for 50 of them.
There's been talk for a while now of the top 60-70 teams or so from the power conferences breaking away and creating their own "Super D-I" or something like that. Since they already have an unfair advantage in terms of resources, infrastructure, cash flow, etc it makes sense. Why should your Michigan and Ohio States of the CFB world base their decisions off of what is in Toledo's best interest.
So with that in mind, you'd basically have a semi-pro level D-I division, and then your "normal" D-I division. Since all of these sub-power D-I schools did just fine before the college sports boom, they should be able to continue to exist and give out 85 scholarships or close to it.
Basically, your MAC schools get stuck financially in like 2000, while the power conferences continue to expand and grow.
I wonder what the new B1G will look like when Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Maryland, and Rutgers decide they can no longer compete with the other schools and continue to lose money like they are now. Seems like that super conference idea is going to keep thinning out until it's down to the only 12 teams who currently make money. Of course, in an effort to compete, those 12 will continue to keep spending until only one is left. Yay, the ultimate college competition!
"There's been talk for a while now of the top 60-70 teams or so from the power conferences breaking away and creating their own "Super D-I" or something like that."
Problem is - it isn't 60-70 teams.
More like 30-40.
Wouldn't dare give any money to walkons like that Kovacs kid. They are just placeholders and tackling dummies.
I agree, and I never said players should be paid equally.
I just see a problem with denard seeing some of the money I'm spending to buy his jersey (unless I can start paying for jerseys with used textbooks--cuz you know--education is fair compensation)
and throwing a headset in the pearly land at your comments.
The Team, The Team, The Team - everyone has a part and a role in the success of The Team.
Bo coached in a different era, get over it.
who risks a career-ending knee injury or a potentially fatal spinal injury in the course of representing their alma mater on the field is deserving, in my opinion, of being spared personal responsibility for paying the medical bills hoisted on them by the unforseeable consequences of their participitation, even if they aren't key players in bringing in the $150 million a well established program collects from theirs and other's efforts.
If standout success means that people with deep pockets would pay generously to see advertising with Devin Gardener's face associated with their goods or services, I think that is fine too.
The current NCAA definition of "amateurism" is as flatulent, outdated and arbitrary as was that of the Olympics ca. 1970.
The problem with the arguments you've been making is that you've been talking (not incorrectly) about all college athletes, and the union that's to be formed purports to represent only football players. Surely wrestlers and other athletes risk the same sorts of injuries, but as of now, they're not being offered a seat at the table.
And which value? Denard Robnson's value or Thomas Rawls? Who is determining that?
BTW, free health care in football is a MASSIVE benefit
We'd spend all our money on RBs, and their value would be about as much as Eric Dickerson... if he invested his SMU salary wisely in the pre-recession stock market and got out before the collapse.
I just had an epiphany.
Fred Jackson does not engage in hyperbole.
When Fred says that a back is like Eric Dickerson, he means exactly what he says. That back is like (the 53 year old)
repetitive sub-concussive contact, wear and tear, trauma to the knees, and other potential fatal and crippling mishaps are a MASSIVE health risk.
By your reasoning, not playing football at all is a MASSIVE benefit.
It puts me in the mind of advertisements that say, "You can't afford to pass up these SAVINGS."
People also forget that players are playing for the betterment of their school. There is a direct corrolation between success on the field and acedemic betterment.
Johnny Manziel winning the heisman skyrocketed the applications at A&M. Players of yesterday treated the opportunity for a scholarship as a privledged opportunity, not a pay day. I would have killed to have been born 6'4", 220 and the skills to play at the college level on a scholarship. Most recent graduated end their college career with <100k in student debt.
Talk about getting a step up in life. Players are most definitely already paid for what they are doing on the field.
If you boss came to you and said "Hey ChuckWood, profits are up 40% the past 5 years, but for the fifth year in a row, we just can't give you a raise. But fear not, more people are buying our product so its for the betterment of the business." I really doubt you'd be cool with that logic.
It depends. If you're very good, you can go find a better job, which college athletes can do (see Burke, Hardaway, etc). If you're not, then you probably get what you deserve, regardless of your company's ability to become more profitable. Just because your whole company is doing better, that doesn't mean you are doing more or deserve more money.
you'd have to sit out a year at your new job before you are allowed to participate, unless the boss that hired you at your old job left before you joined. If someone at the new job still wants you after having to carry you for a year, you must be DAMN good.
No, I was saying going pro was the equivalent to getting a better job, since transferring would get you the same pay. If you aren't good enough for a better job, you deserve what you're getting paid. In every industry.
it's like a four- or five-year internship where only ca. < one in a hundred ever actually gets a paying job directly related to the field of expertise involved in the internship.
I still don't think anyone would find this attractive anywhere outside the artificial legal world of the NCAA.
That's exactly what happens in the mail room of CAA or William Morris.
If you were my employee I would pay you in burgers.
Your argument suggests that college football players should all be treated like employees. Give a raise if they are producing, fire them (cut them) if they are not.
Most people on this board rag on the SEC for improper benefits and cutting players, however hold a very similar stance when it comes to "pay for play."
I'm not using logic to argue, I'm using fact. Players are currently paid with the equivalent of money. As I said, most people would kill for a chance at a free education and to be able to play the game that they love in front of a national audience.
The majority of America likes the NFL more than they do college football. Partially because they are from an area without a college team or didn't go to college all together. I personally like college football a whole lot more. The lack of greed and passion to play at the next level is what makes it so great.
Now that I think about it, I actually asked a boss of mine for a raise once. The company had never been doing better, we were cranking out a ton of extra work for no extra money, so the time was ripe to ask for a job. Very similar to what college athletes are going through now. You know what my boss told me? "These are the halcyon days, and you should just enjoy, and be happy to be a part of the organization. Plenty of people would kill to be in your spot."
Well, halcyon days don't pay the rent. And that was the end of the line for me. I had a new job in under a year. Most (like 98%) of these college athletes don't have that option. They aren't good enough to go pro, so they are stuck going to school, potentially in a major they'd rather not be in, while still having to "work" 40-50+ hours a week on football.
Just because you're doing something that lots of other people would like to do, doens't mean you shouldn't be rewarded accordingly. The scale has shifted in college sports, and the rewards are out of balance.
This is sort of delving into polical discussion now, but companies should determine their employees' pay as what their employees are willing to work for. If people aren't willing to leave for something else, then your pay is adequate. That includes changing careers. But football players aren't doing that. If I asked for a raise, and my boss said, "Nope, that's what we pay, and nobody's leaving for greener pastures so we're not changing it" he'd have a good point. That's the situation now.
My wife went to her boss last year and said she wanted a raise or she'd start looking for other options. Her boss told her she'd never find a job that paid her what he did and would give her the same kind of flexibility. He wasn't being a jerk, but he was right, and she stayed. That's what the NCAA should say to these players.
This analogy is pretty bad, mainly because there's nowhere else for them to play football. The NCAA has a monopoly, which is a MAJOR difference between it and other industries. Sports leagues in America are in a totally unique situation, as monopolies are illegal in pretty much every other industry. So, not the same at all.
Methinks your mom would have hated it.
I understand where this tired argument comes from, but without the context that is the revenue that football players generate, any list of their compensation is meaningless.
According to Forbes, Michigan Football had $85M in revenue in 2011-2012. If you figure that each scholarship player gets $100,000 in scholarships/room/board which seems high but I will go with it, together they receive $8.5M in compensation or 10% of the revenue. NFL players receive around 50%.
Maybe some macroeconomist can chime in and say if receiving 10% of the revenue you generate is pretty standard in the workplace but it certainly is low compared to the professional sports leagues.
Professional athletes get 50% of the league revenues as a whole group, regardless of how much each team ours into that pot. So I guess if you wanted to calculate the total revenues of all 125 D1 schools, then divide that by the total number of scholarship football players on those teams, you'd get a better picture of their compensation.
from the money-losing, low-end D1 programs.
And then further weight the distribution by individual contribution.
Once you go there, you've gone there, and it's only a matter of time before water reaches its natural level.
I would, but this is not my area of expertise; I don't know where to start.
If you want a discussion of just intonations for Dorian mode, I might be able to hang in there for a bit.
10% of revenue in salaries would be quite generous for most businesses. For example, Apple pays less than that and they make 15 times the revenue (and many tens billions in pure profit than NFL
50% is a very skewed number because NFL players are a very select group. It is comprised of less than 10% of the very best from NCAA. They SHOULD be making a lot more than NCAA players who are not as talented or rare.
10% is probably right in line with what they deserve. If you count in athletes from non revenue sports, they are getting paid too much as it is today.
I'm not sure if them being taken advantage of is what the core issue here is. They definitely already get a good amount of benefits. No one is debating that. All they are asking for is more because their slice of the pie hasn't changed as revenues have skyrocketed.
It would be like starting out with a small company that pulls in $50M a year in profits and you make $50k a year in salary. Initially, you're happy with this. But say after 10 years, your company is now making $5B a year in profits and minus some small raises, you're basically still making $50k a year. I think all of us would be in full on WTF mode and be demanding a slice of those profits.
That's what's happened in college sports. The athletes are already getting paid and getting benefits. They just want more. And to argue against it because "college football might change" is silly. It changed a long time ago. At least let the athletes we all cheer for benefit from some of that change.
^This. A thousand times this comment.
Or more accurately, individual athletes. The reason rights fees have skyrocketed is that networks are scrambling for live events, as the ratings for everything else on TV continue to go down. So networks value college football more then they once did--the product, (formations aside) is mostly the same as it ever was. so are ratings--its just that the similar ratings are now more valuable to advertisers, And those ratings would be excatly the same no matter which athletes were on the field. College pagentry, tradition, school loyalty and pride, NOT individual athletes, are why college football is so appealing. I could replace every single M player the week before the OSU game and replace them with walk ons, same for OSU, and the ratings for that game would be excatly the same.
"I could replace every single M player the week before the OSU game and replace them with walk ons, same for OSU, and the ratings for that game would be excatly the same."
You also could say that about the coaches. Why are they getting ~$5 million/year.
As an operation becomes much more valuable, the maintenance/don't screw it up premium goes up.
This is an excellent point that needs to be made more. Just look to the skyrocketing coaching salaries - coaching salaries have gone up pretty much in line with revenue increases. Student athelete compensation has remained the same, more or less.
The issue here is that players had no bargaining power, until now, so their compensation was being held artificially low. The reason players are allowed to unionize in pro sports is because pro sports leagues are monopolies, just like the NCAA. In order to prevent the monopoly from artifically holding down labor costs, (strong) unionization is required. That's what is finally being allowed to happen in college athletics.
was doing much, much better in 1901. I think we need to return to the practices of that era.
No come up with a value on all the things they receive call that an income and send them a 1099 at the end of the year. I bet that would slow down their arguments a bit. Who can afford tax on 100,000 dollars worth of income at 18-22?
#5 and #2 can be combined but the argument isn't that they're not getting anything. The argument is that the school is making millions off of them and the trade off is disproportionate. Also I doubt that it costs Michigan $50k/yr per athlete.
I don't yet have an opinion as to whether this is a good or bad development and I'm still trying to learn about how it works, but the statement about bargaining with the NCAA doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't the bargaining be with the athletes' individual schools? The NCAA is a membership organization run by the member schools. I may be wrong, but this is a different situation from professional players unions negotiating with the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. because there is a league-wide recognized union in each of those cases that isn't present at the college level.
but it's not like the individual schools will have no leverage. Minor league football already exists. (Arena League, some would say CFL.) There would be nothing special about an 18-22 year olds-only pro league.
Segregate wisely between the money making programs and the rest, and then let the new equilibrium find itself.
Which is fair, but it is more attenuated than any professional sports league where the union negotiates with the governing body directly. The added intermediary makes change (to the extent that is what unionized students want) slower and more difficult, all other aspects being equal.
Also, although I am not saying it will happen or that it is necessarily a bad thing, but each school could have slightly different work rules (which are one of unions' core competencies). As an example, could NW bargain for no practices the week before midterms and finals, while SMU bargains for no Oklahoma drill. Some variety is probably a good thing (and could be a selling point), but one could imagine how it could go too far.
To take it to a more illogical extreme, could a player who gets benched file a grievance? I'm not talking about a player who gets Sabanized by a medical redshirt (that grievance would undoubtedly be a good thing), but a starter who gets benched. Or a player who is "strongly encouraged" to change positions against their will. I am willing to guess that opinion would at least be split on this board over these examples. Note that if the bargaining was with the NCAA directly, these issues would not really be on the table, because they are in the discretion of the member institution.
This makes no sense. The NCAA is an organization of colleges and universities. How can the organization of universities be "the guy at the top?" How much profit is he making, and why does it bother you that he does so?
The money in college sports goes overwhelmingly to the student athletes. There are NO PROFITS. Your problem does not exist. As far as "small is beautifull" is concerned, I think that's just a lie you tell your lover.
the pos-neg balance, it appears opinion on this board is about evenly split.
Can you be a scab even after you've graduated? I would like to try a FG once!!
I call QB!!!
I played football in HS at 135.... now I'm 172, so I think I'm ready for RT (at 5'8" my arms aren't long enough for LT)
Hard to say what the overall implications of this will be. With the O'bannon case and all of the other stuff making its way through the court system, I can't say that I'm too surprised. My first thought (a selfish one) is this is overall good news for Michigan because we have the resources to compete no matter how the game will be played going forward. My next thought (not thinking as a huge fan of CFB in its current format) is that this is a great thing for the players and the right thing to do
It's important to note that because the University of Michigan is a public school, it is subject to the public sector labor laws of the state. These laws can be very different from those of the NLRA in the private sector. A state employment board (MERC in Michigan) would have to decide that athletes are employees based on the state laws (the PERA in Michigan). In Michigan, all the recent political animus towards public sector unions leads me to believe this would be a pretty tough sell.
I'm genuinely excited to hear this.
I think it's good for the players. The NCAA and schools have profited off of free labor for years. These kids end up with a raw deal when it's all said and done. One can look no further than the academic performance of athletes at Chapel Hill or even the roots of the term student athlete.
So a 4 year full ride scholarship is not getting paid? This concept is a mockery of the system.
They're not getting the same academic opportunities as the general student body. Their purpose is to focus on their sport and generate revenue for the school. If they happen to learn how to read beyond a middle school level or develop professional connections, then that's secondary benefit.
These kids get all the resources they need. All kinds of swag and free education. If the players are paid then I say make them pay for their education.
They don't get the same opportunities? Let's take Michigan, for example. Look at the athletes-only Ross Student Center in the Yost parking lot. If anything, the general student body doesn't get the same academic opportunities as the athletes.
I think he meant, and I can agree with him to a certain extent, that players are generally steered away from certain classes/majors because of the difficulty of balancing such work loads. Average students have more freedom in this regard. The other side of it, as you mentioned, is that the athletes also get a lot of perks that regular students don't get. Student athletes get a good amount of free clothing, electronics, tutoring, parking, living opportunities, etc. and I don't think it's unfair to think some popular athletes could get favorable grades from profs. A lot of these athletes also get the opportunity to go to a school they'd never get into without their athletic abilities. There's two sides to the argument. I'm kind of on the fence about the whole thing. While I feel like student athletes get plenty of compensation, I also have no problem with them thinking they should get a chunk of the profits.
Definitely true, student athletes get benefits that regular students lack. The flip side is that they give up probably the most valuable resource - time - as they have to dedicate a huge majority of their time to their sport. I'm sure most people here read Three and Out and remember the chapter about Denard's day. Sure, not all regular students take advantage of the copious amounts of free time they have to actually learn, but not all regular students get much out of their education. When it comes to learning, time is one of the most, if not the most, valuable resource, and student athletes desperately lack that.
those damn basketball players wasting their academic opportunities getting masters degrees in industry and operations engineering
They're not getting the same academic opportunities as the general student body. Their purpose is to focus on their sport and generate revenue for the school. If they happen to learn how to read beyond a middle school level or develop professional connections, then that's secondary benefit.
I despise this line of thinking.
They have the same opportunities as most of the student body and then some when you consider the Academic Study Hall afforded them.
Their focus is to represent their school as a student-athlete. I know a lot of people find this reprehensible ideal but it's a fact. You can ask every single Michigan athlete what their purpose is and ZERO will say "to generate revenue".
As I stated above, they get the same opportunities, and possibly more opportunities, in a lot of ways, but lack the key advantage of time. Dedicating 40+ hours a week to student athletes puts them at a big disadvantage vs. other students, who can spend that time actually studying and learning. Whether they actually do is besides the point - the point is that student athletes most definitely do give up opportunities because they lack time.
While some student athletes can make it work anyway, it still places them at a disadvantage, and I think anyone would here would be hard-pressed to say that the average education received by football players is as high-quality as education received by the average student. There are other reasons for this in addition to lack of time, namely being pushed towards certain "easier" majors, but lack of time is definitely the biggest disadvantage a student athlete faces.
Athletes have access to study halls and special tutors that regular students don't. They get more help to succeed at Michigan than I did.
generating revenue on a scale that few could as 18-22 year olds.
I agree. In a lot of schools, these kids are pushed through the system just so they can play and generate revenue for the school. Paul Barrett's Bllomberg article on the UNC scandal is one of the best arguments that big time college sports programs exploit these kids for their athletic talents.
Check it out here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-27/in-fake-classes-scandal-unc-fails-its-athletes-whistle-blower
What good is a degree from UNC if the players can barely read? I would bet this happens at more schools than just UNC. Hopefully not Michigan...
They don't get a 4 year ride. They get recurring 1-year scholarships. Some schools do offer 4-year scholarships, but the majority don't and they're all still contingent on a variety of things. And their scholarship isn't the same as a general student body scholarship because you flat out don't have the time to try and do the same things as a normal student.
Plus with all of the madatory and "voluntary" hours they have to put in, it leaves little to no time for actual education. A system where they got deferred scholarships would be better. Spend a year on the team, get a year of tuition to use when you're ready. Or if you want to do both at the same time, you can do that too. That way, for all the athletes that think they're going pro, but ultimately fail, they could still get their education when their pro careers flame out, and they're more willing and serious about getting an education.
And they should absolutely be getting a slice of jersey sales and TV revenue. There is more than enough to go around.
I was in the marching band, should I get paid as much TV revenue as the 3rd string player that never sees the field? because I got way more TV time than he did
Do people here think that you don't need able bodies to hold an actual football practice? A football team isn't a collection of "a bunch of guys who don't do anything" + Denard Robinson.
But sometimes it did LOOK that way!
i was trying to comment more on the value an individual brings to the school and organization than commenting on how valuable scout team players are. Many more people contribute to the gameday experience and atmoshpere than just the football players playing the game. The student trainers, band, cheerleaders, dance team all contribute as well and dont reap any of the profits either.
All you need to run a practice are the 22 players for an offense and defense soooooooo
Yeah, the point is that their value is on a different planet than yours. You can strip away all of the pep squad and once everyone forgets to be outraged in two years the end result is the same. The band is not even in the same neighborhood as the scout team. Form a union, go on strike, and see if the system even has a hiccup. I'd take a dog catching frisbees over those absurd halftime shows you guys trot out.
Do you think 110,000 people and tv trucks would show up during the football teams off week to watch the marching band perform?
The reality is there is not more than enough to go around. Most ADs operate in the red, and for schools that don't, money is spent keeping facilities up to par, renovating stadiums and keeping top coaching and training staff. What of that should we sacrifice to pay the players?
That is the harsh reality - most schools operate in the red, and athletic programs are subsidized by the student population who pay an athletic or activities fee. The more you provide athletes in the way of benefits, the greater the load that will be shifted onto the backs of students who are already up to their ears in debt.
If unionization ultimately succeeds, and if there are significant dollar benefits that go with it, you will start seeing more and more programs dropping sports programs. At this point in time, with CTE, various suits against the NCAA and now this, the landscape for college sports as we know it could change drastically and not for the better.
I think ticket / activity fees are already maxed, so when labor cost go up and you cannot raise prices - you cut costs.
This means elimination of scholarships.
Teams will become "amateur clubs" like they were 60 years ago. Everyone is a walk-on.
Which means only students that can afford college can go.
Poor kids will be relegated to the semi-pros, semi-pro football will become a reality.
Is this any different than hockey? Kids that want to go to college play college hockey. Those that don't play in the minors at 18.
This is probably how it should work, getting rid of all the phoney classes and cheating for kids that don't belong in college anyway.
It would go in that direction for the subsidized sports.
Kids can choose schools where they can pick their own major, they can stop playing the sport if they dont want the injury risks, there isnt anyone stopping kids from sigining up for challenging classes or difficult majors.
oh sorry forgot these athletes are special and dont have the same freedom as the rest of the 18 year olds who are able to choose their own classes and life decisions and accept the risks those choices entail
Sure, they can choose classes, but they don't have the TIME that all other students have to actually take on the workloads that many of these classes entail. They often spend 40-60 weeks dedicated to athletics. Especially football players - I'm sure you remember the chapter from Three and Out describing Denard's standard day. While I'm aware that some athletes can handle it, it's acknowledged that they are generally rare, which is why they are always lauded. Not everyone is capable of working 100 hours a week between football and school.
Regardless, the point is now student athletes will have more power. If the market and schools can afford to compensate these players more, they will be compensated more. If not, the status quo will remain. Unionization should allow the market to determine whether compensation for student athletes has been artifically depressed or not - time will tell.
There really are only as few valuable degrees if we using the economics as the measure you seem to imply in your post as what makes a degree valuable.
We should also be real frank here, many of these kids are not at these schools to learn, but t hone their football skills in order to play in the NFL. A certain percentage of these kids are terribly unprepared for college and thus must be placed in "bad degree" tracks.
Truthfully, many of these kids would never have a shot at a college degree if not for college football. This isn't made-up progaganda, but fact.
The system needs to be reformed, but the issue is so much more complex than people are letting on.
regarding negotiations is that they are negotiations. Everyone is giddy at the thought of players getting paid. There will be another side to that coin, along with a host of unintended consequences.
Do not law enforcement officers understand the risk associated with the job they perform? You can suffer the same afflictions in high school athletics. What are you gonna do? Sue the school district because your child was hurt in a contact sport. The logic exhibited in your response is lacking in merit.
or the lack thereof, was one of the issues cited as a reason to establish a union to represent the players' side of things. Maybe you unwittingly agree with them after all.
It's not free labor, they pay them in the form of education, meals, $1,200 month stipend, etc. Nobody is telling these kids that they can't go to college unless they play football, they can take the normal route and get student loans and be a normal student. That's what grinds my gears about the whole thing.
I don't know what's right for the players, I think I'm just scared of the greatest game being changed for the worse, forever. But who knows, maybe it turns out to not have much of an effect or makes things better. Only time will tell.
I agree with this sentiment. Factor in coaching time, travel, training, tutors and equipment and the expenses go into the 100s of thousands per athlete. The vast majority of D-1 athletes are getting a great deal out of a scholarship. Besides, most athletic departments are barely breaking even if at all. There are a few athletes on every major team that the school probably takes advantage of with jersey sales, etc. No system is perfect. To me though, more than 95% of D-1 athletes are getting a great deal.
Those student loans take forever to pay off and the stipends these kids receive are larger than most kids make working part time.
Spare me the "athletic departments are barely breaking even" mantra. Athletic departments spend all the money they have available every year because they have to. They aren't in it to make a profit. Its only after that that they cry broke.
most of that money goes to support the non-revenue generating sports, to pay salaries for staff, maintain facilities, advertising etc. its not like they are burning all the money earned and saying they are broke its that most schools have to help finance the athletic departments budgets and few are self sustaining like Michigan/OSU/Texas etc etc.
I have a bigger problem with the NCAA, the organization as a whole. March Madness is the perfect example . Amateur athletics is big business. CBS and the NCAA know it. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with the current system if there wasn't so much money involved. Everyone else besides the players are profiting.
My point was on the majority of D-1 programs such as the mid majors. WIth the the top 10-20 athletic departments, there are different motives in play.
Travel, trainers, equipment, etc. are more or less the cost of doing business or overhead. Traveling for games is not vacation, it's a business trip. Trainers are there to maintain the athletic departments investment, similar to a mechanic with a car. At some (nike) schools the equipment is a valuable perk for the athletes, but it's primary purpose is advertising. Adidas pays almost $10M/yr in cash and equipment for 900 walking billboards.
My opinions aren't popular, but they come from first hand experience of being a D-1 athlete and having friends that played different sports at different schools. Michigan is a consensus top 30 school. My love for the university is probably unhealthy. I know for a fact that the majority of the schools athletes are not getting the same quality of education as the general student body. Therefore comparing the value of their scholarship to the scholarship of a general student is like comparing apples to oranges.
The amount of time an athlete is expected to put towards their sport vs their classes is evidence enough that their sport is their job.
So if they are already paying them, what's wrong with paying them more? If they are getting $1200/month, what's wrong with bumping that up to $2000/month? Or even $5000/month?
You want to bump their stipend by 3 grand a month each? Great, that's 3 million bucks a year, just for football. Where is that money coming from? Or more specifically, what are we not spending 3 mil a year on to make that possible?
The money comes from the skyrocketing TV deals.
Look, no one said it would be easy. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen though. Because don't forget, all of these schools and teams were doing just fine prior to the skyrocketing TV contracts and the extra money coming in from brand new networks.
For instance, a decade ago Michigan football was making around $20-25M a year, it made $46.8M in 2010-2011 and in 2011-12, they made $85M. That's astronomical growth and They will certainly be over $100M a year within a few years if they aren't there already. So there is plenty of money to go around. Maybe instead of growing support staffs and $250M renovations to buildings that don't really need to be renovated we give some of that to players.
And I bet that to a man, if you asked the players on the football team "would you rather have an extra $3k a month or a renovated practice facility" they would all choose the $3k.
I hear you, man. Maybe we can cut down on the opulent facilities and maybe even cap the coaches salaries. There's no reason college basketball and football coaches should be the highest paid government employees in the state, which they are in several schools around the country.
I know you used Michigan because that's the team we all cheer for, put pull those same numbers for Western Michigan or even Iowa State. Now how much extra money is flying around? It's very different. What about programs like Georgetown or Villanova that have D1 basketball but not football to bring in a bunch of money? You can't make a rule that works for Michigan. It has to work for everyone, otherwise you have a situation where Michigan players get 5k a month and Iowa St players get 1200 a month and now players are going to the school that pays the most.
And to the guy who suggested capping coaches' salaries - don't expect to pull a guy like Mattison from the NFL ever again. In fact, the NCAA would lose every good coach to the NFL.
I agree with you on 98% of this whole issue, but....there ain't but so many jobs in the NFL. I'm all for a cap, one that's percentage-of-revenue based just like in the NBA and NFL. That would keep coaching salaries from rising at a faster rate than revenue as well as let schools offer something commensurate with their earning power.
That's fair, but I disagree. If you want to overpay to poach someone you value a whole lot, or keep a super hot coach from heading to the league, you should be able to do it.
Coaches aren't subject to the cap in professional leagues.
What you are saying is that you want to go from a system where coaches are free to make as much as they can and the players are capped in their compensation to a system where the coaches are capped in their compensation and the players are free to make as much as they can.
That doesn't seem any more fair than the current system.
The players' cap in those leagues is percentage of revenue, which is what I meant but admittedly tied the two concepts together too loosely.
I don't actually want to go to a system where the players are free to make as much as they can. Shouldn't have been implied by that post. I want to go to a system where both are capped in their compensation.
Perhaps the football/basketball/hockey players look at all the Taj Mahals being constructed for non-revenue generating sports and ask, why is the revenue stream to which I made a significant contribution going these temples of amatuer sport instead of to, oh, me?
That's not selfish. If college football is ruined through all of this, there won't be money to pay players, so everyone loses. If the workers at a company make demands to improve their conditions, and those changes lead to the company going under, who wins?
How will it? I don't know. How could it? A number of ways. First off, fans deciding the idea of watching paid football players isn't as interesting, and decide to watch the NFL instead. Or the majority of teams not being able to afford to hang in this new environment. Unfortunately, the likely losers in this will be softball players and swimmers, etc. Schools will end up cutting those money-drain sports to keep their football program afloat.
Everyone says "think about the athletes" which really means, "think about the football and basketball players." All the other athletes are going to be on the short end of the stick.
The other athletes are already on the short end of the stick. Nothing will change that. And the athletes already get "paid" through a variety of stipends and benefits. Having them get more benefits won't change a single thing. People will still love their university, will still cheer for their teams and players, and life will largely continue as normal.
Well, that's some logic. "Non-revenue programs are already getting cut left and right, so more of that is certainly fine. We can continue to screw them even more so that football players can feel more properly appreciated."
Thank you. Exactly.
How did anything work 30 years ago when athletic departments were generating a lot less income? Everyone connected with the athletic departments have made out like bandits in the last 30 years except for the athletes, or if you prefere the football and basketball players.
Its not even 30 years ago. If you go back just 10-15 years ago, they had revenue of like 25% or less of what they do now. I'd bet that the 1997 team had revenue that's about 20% of what the 2014 team will have.
enough to spend money on them / write their programs a check?
is for the families, and most of all, the children, of the ticket-takers at Michigan Stadium and elsewhere, then you are right, you are truly selfless.
What does the color of one's skin have to do with anything?
White males are the ones responsible for Unionism and indeed, the rights you enjoy.That they are also responsible for racism and abuse of workers there is no doubt. But you and every UM grad ought to be learned enough to see the injustice of blanket statements like the type you just made.
Keep on keepin on!
The wording selected may lead to an excess of static over signal in the stream this comment generates.
that free education at a world class institution, free food, housing, world class medical care, and tang. What a fucking raw deal. I can't believe most live to tell the tale.
Yes, athletes receive compensation, but I think the fact that everyone who is a fan of college sports is willing to overlook is that they are not earning market wages. This combined with the fact that football (and basketball) have no minor leagues, essentially forces athletes (not all) to accept a wage that is 100s to 1000s times less then what they could command in an open market and they don't even get paid in cash. Add in that "student-athletes" are largely prevented from taking on other jobs, cannot get compensated for other sports that they are good at (Jeremy Bloom comes to mind), or even be compensated for the exploitation of their own image (O'Bannon case, Denard jerseys, etc.) and I think we can admit that for many the "payment" they receive is not even close to fair.
but every other member of that team was getting MORE than a market value
I disagree... I think. It really would depend on what you think the market wage would be.
Even the walk-ons on the team are providing VERY highly skilled labor (as in less than 5% of the population would even be physically able to reasonably attempt) for hundreds of hours over the year - how would you value that?
a team. The fact is without college football the majority kids would have zero marketability. If "college football" dies and it becomes basically a D league for the NFL how many 3rd stringers on down are going to get a dime? There's about 5 kids per bball team that deserve "millions" and maybe 15 per football team. The rest would fair far poorer in your "open market" scenario.
" but I think the fact that everyone who is a fan of college sports is willing to overlook is that they are not earning market wages."
The top 50 or so football players and 25 or so basketball players are earning less than market wages.
The other 415,000 or so D1 NCAA athletes are earning more than market wages, often by a huge amount.
I think the athletes getting more is somewhat justified but it's going to come from higher ticket prices or from cutting sports. Those are really the only two options. Let's face it, coaches and administration are not taking salary cuts. It's also possible that the athletic department donations will no longer be deductible resulting in revenue decreases.
The NCAA can't be blamed for the lack of professional minor leagues as an option. That's on the pros.
I've seen people say this only applies to private schools however there is no way for schools who don't pay athletes to compete for the elite athletes with the ones that do.
Many of the athletes may come out losers if there scholarships and other benefits become taxable.
It's great to say pay them but I think it's going to change the landscape dramatically. There will be winners, but there may be many more losers.
"This combined with the fact that football (and basketball) have no minor leagues, essentially forces athletes (not all) to accept a wage that is 100s to 1000s times less then what they could command in an open market."
Why is there no open market? Anybody here up for going to the Non-NFL, 18-22 year-old only pro game?
I think the players should be able to command a larger share in a new equilibrium where competing schools have to compete on $$$ for the top players, but 100s to 1000s is very Fred Jackson-eqse.
Yes, there would be a new equilibrium. It wouldn't be 100s to 1000s times higher.
Will be paid minimum wage under any payroll system.
of the Southern part of Illinois...we call this the "Chicago factor."
I really want to make up my own mind, but I feel like I need someone smarter and more knowledgeable on the issue to explain this to me in a non-hyperbolic way.
In a nutshell, the NCAA and schools make billions and billions a year. A number that continues to rise at a steep rate. College athletes get a stipend and recurring 1-year scholarships (in most cases). What they get remains largely unchanged from year to year. They would like a bigger slice of the pie in the form of a larger stipend, to be able to get a percentage of sales from people profiting on their likeness, or some other TBD benefit (like maybe a deferred scholarship). Up until now, they've had zero leverage against the NCAA and schools. Now they have the potential for a tiny bit of leverage.
In an even smaller nutshell: revenue pouring in to college sports has changed dramtically in the last 10-20 years or so. What the athletes get has remained largely unchanged. Athletes would like to see what they get out of the arrangement change so they can benefit as well.
I was specifically talking about the implications of unionization (which you touched on), not a summary of the general debate over whether or not college athletes deserve additional money/funding/stipend, but I sincerely appreciate the response.
it means that they can vote to have union representation. If they so choose then their elected representative would be able to negotiate with the University on all manner of workplace rules including compensation.
Now, just because they have the right to negotiate, doesn't mean the union will actually have the leverage it needs to pull off substantial changes. What will be interesting to see is whether players at other universities will be able unionize as well. Public universities may be subject to different union rules.
The other interesting question will be whether the football players could strike and what the consequences of such a strke would be. Can the school then declare a lockout and bring in replacements? Would the school be able to screen out recruits they think may want to join the union?
Lastly, will non-revenue athletes have the same rights? Walk-ons were specifically excluded from the football team decision which shows that the NLRB reviews a number of factors on a case by case basis.
This was helpful and answered some of my questions, so thanks!
Brian is a sure bet to comment on this on the main page at some point.
On one hand, I'm happy for the players, and I think it's completely justified given that they've been basically unpaid university employees for a very long time. However, the implications of this and the O'Bannon case could spell total doom for amateur athletics in the NCAA, which isn't fun.
How does $180,000 (average 4-year tuition at Northwestern) in tuition make them unpaid? That doesn't include room and board, other fees, or books which I believe are covered under athletic scholarships.
Scholarships aren't considered earnings. It's really that simple -- nobody is paying taxes on that money, so it's not a payment. Scholarships are actually just a very high-quality form of employee discount.
Fine. Get rid of scholarships, give them a $180,000 stipend over four years. They figure out how to pay for their tutition. DONE.
They're not considered earnings for tax purposes. Taxes are a terrible way of defining earnings. People making under a certain amount don't pay taxes either but the money they make is still considered earnings. The students are still getting something for their services.
To keep from getting too political, that's the last I'll say on this particular direction of the thread.
Very few athletes, especially those in revenue-generating sports, truly utilize the value of a scholarship, and many of those are not exactly on their own accord. Look at our very own coaches trying to steer Da'Shawn Hand away from engineering because they deemed it "too much work to balance school and football." Look down the roster and see how many of the basketball, football, and hockey players are doing things like "sports management" or "general studies".
And what about walk-ons? What if we're at the 85 scholarship limit and another Kovacs shows up. Now he's paying $40k as an out-of-state student for tuition and housing, playing football for a team that has a profit of more than $60 million a year.
I'd argue that very few athletes truly utilize the value of their salary in general. How often do we hear about NFL players who had multi-million dollar contracts run out of money? It would be great if they were all like Zoltan.
Regarding the walk-ons, they're here voluntarily. They aren't the ones adding huge value to the program (and if they do they'll earn a scholly, like Kovacs) - the idea with the cap is that they could go somewhere else and get a scholarship.
Yes, but a college scholarship isn't fungible and its value is debatable - it all depends on how much the student gets out of his academic experience. (I also think a college education is vastly overvalued monetarily for anybody, but thats besides the point).
In the case of a kid like Denard, his worth to the athletic department and university far exceeded the cost of a four year scholarship. How many #16 jerseys did the stores sell? How many people tuned into games just to see him specifically - a source of value that can't really be measured? Same goes for ticket sales.
How much of that money did Denard see? None. What if he got hurt and couldn't land a pro contract? Seems unfair to me.
Many people go to the University of Michigan and have 4 years of tuition. Many of them graduated with debt. Denard did the same thing - he went to U of M and he graduated with a degree, and he didn't have to take out loans to do it. I wouldn't exactly say he got nothing.
You're really outlining two arguments - "his worth to the athletic department and university far exceeded the cost of a four year scholarship" and "he saw nothing from it"
In my opinion, you're absolutely right about the first point and it's worth debating. But to say he got nothing out of it isn't really correct. If he got hurt and couldn't land a pro contract, he still would have a college degree that he wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
double post, sorry
Trebor, I'm with you. I also wonder what's going to happen if and when this goes to the SCOTUS; I was surprised the NLRB sided with the players. Regardless, it's quite an historic day for sports law. This, the Kessler lawsuit against the NCAA, the O'Bannon suit...there will be changes no matter what, given the state of the law and where it appears it is headed.
The NCAA has held on under a number of exemptions to monopoly law the justifications for which it seems to be doing its best to discredit. Even with the pendulum still heading in an anti-populist direction, it seems like something has to give.
bye bye Boise.
Football dollars ruin everything.
It's already preventing Michigan from playing for the oldest trophy in college football yearly and from playing charter members of this conference on a yearly basis.
Won't this cripple many athletic departments and force them to drop sports? Perhaps not Michigan, but schools of lesser stature?
Maryland recently dropped several sports.
We should keep in mind that the NLRB ruling will likely affect about 20 schools currently playing Division I football (although for basketball, it's much higher - obviously, it would vary with the sport) because of their "private" status. I do wonder what the "public" version of this would look like theoretically though.
I also imagine that Northwestern is working on their appeal as we speak, so I envision a rather protracted fight over this from the school. It does open the door for a vote on unionization though, and I assume that the players will do that as soon as possible.
In short, the public sector version of this will vary state by state. This may make it easier for some public school players to unionize than others depending on their location.
Does this mean that Northwestern can fire all of their underperforming players and replace them with better ones now?
At the risk of trashing their APR, and as long as they can convince any kids to hop on board knowing the university has no problem firing kids for having a bad week of practice.
Alabama, on the other hand . . . .
No matter how the opinion comes out, it will be appealed--probably multiple times. I wouldn't expect any major impact until the appeals process has run its course.
EDIT: Actually, I take this back. Looks like under the NLRB rules the decision is not stayed on appeal.
I'm in the camp that's not so quick to view student athletes as unpaid employees, but still listening to counterarguments.
What I'm really curious about, though, is what a strike looks like for a college athletic union. Does, for example, the Northwestern football team "strike" in the middle of a season to get better stipends? Does a non-striking opponent get an automatic win for the cancelled game? Can the university put scabs on the field? Can a striking student still go to class and enjoy their scholarship?
Seems like a can o' worms has been opened to me. But it's hard for me to see how this could play out in the real world.
Northwestern was by far the worse place for this whole union thing. I can see them going the way of the University of Chicago and just dropping sports instead of going through the extra headache for an athletics department that probably isn't all that beneficial to them.
I doubt it. The year they went to the Rose Bowl their alumni donations went up 10X. They may not have success that frequently, but even if it's infrequent, that's a big jump for a well-off base.
But it won't be the only one. Moreover, I doubt that particular alumni group chose to attend that school because of the Football Saturday experience.
As a result, net impact for NW would probably amount to its share of B1G revenues which on balance fund intercollegiate athletics and the related facilities and staff. Beyond that, perhaps a short term impact on general fund raising; but if the NW administration handles it properly, alumni would probably understand and even support the decision in the long run. I'd even bet that the current players behind the effort would find themselves with a lot fewer friends among those well-healed alumni than they counted on.
By the uproar over this. There was a story like two days ago that ohio state ad gene smith got a 20k raise for an ohio state wrestler winning some title. Athletic departments literally have money coming out of their ears at some of these big schools. It's time that students get a bit more of the pie than what they have been offered.
But OSU has one of the highest revenues of all programs in the country, and any major changes would impact all schools. What do the 100 FBS schools who don't turn a profit do? Not pay players, or drop non-revenue sports so they can compete?
Athletes will never get paid by the universities or the NCAA. The thing that players should be able to do is make money off their name. If a company wants to sponsor you, you should be able to take the money.
What if that company is owned by a booster? Is that still okay?
You probably have to keep boosters away from the high school kids as far as recruiting goes much the same as you do today. But once they're in a school, my thinking is that if you assume a booster is willing to spend his company's advertising dollars on a player, that player is probably talented enough to command similar money elsewhere on the market. I doubt you'll get boosters paying someone a lot more than they're otherwise "worth" on the market* just to, say, keep them playing an additional year instead of bolting to the NFL, because if they're that good, they'll monetize from someone else anyway.
At least this gives the elite talent somewhere else to look besides those omnipresent "uncles" and sports agent wannabes willing to fork over a little spending money here and there.
*(my personal feeling here is that anything is "worth" what someone, anyone is willing to pay for it, but this is something of a semantic/economic debate, I guess)
of creating yet another capricious and arbitrary NCAA enforcement bureaucracy, I'm tempted to say yes.
The Conferences that aren't hip enough to socialize to the point of some sort of revenue sharing (UT et alia) will be in perpetual danger; those that do (B1G, as well as, by analogy, the NFL) will create a stable platform.
If you do make rules, please don't let the NCAA be responsible for enforcing them.
Then the free market decides many of the thornier questions that make a pay-for-play scheme otherwise befuddling/impossible to figure out. Who gets paid? How much? Who decides? Answer to all of these in a pay-for-play is far from obvious. But the market is great at deciding these kinds of things. Maybe the students can't use the University logos/uniforms(z) in the ads or whatever, but otherwise, what's more American than hocking products as a paid spokesperson?
The universities do what universities do... provide an education. If the players are talented enough to monetize their skills, let them have at it. That's probably some fraction of 1% of college athletes. Allowing endorsement deals reduces the hypocrisy and under-the-table dealing a good deal more than 1%, I'd wager.
Will the players have to pay payroll taxes on the scholarships? Will they be viewed as independent contractors? If they are considered employees do they even have to be registered for classes to compete? There are many unanswered questions.
I think these are the best questions to ask. Not how this effect the school and the NCAA but how the government will now view these employees. Do they to have benefits covered under the ACA now. Do they have to pay taxes. Being an employee suck. I wouldn't wish it upon my worse enemy.
Exploitation?? Give me a break. I would have loved to be "exploited" like our football players when I was in college.
You need to get out more if you think this is exploitation. Receiving a college education for playing a spot at a school is not exploitation. There are people literally dying all over the globe from overwork and miserable work conditions. That is exploitation.
This is an unbalanced situation that needs to be reformed. But exploitation? No way in hell.
Have any of you read up on the actual demands of the Northwestern union? They're still required to abide by NCAA rules, so this has no impact on any potential for salaries. That's the fear that the NCAA wants to promote to keep fans on their side. The O'Bannon case might have implications on it, but this doesn't.
This is instead about the right to collectively bargain for non-income-related benefits -- specifically guaranteed medical coverage (especially for a year after the end of playing), greater academic support, and, most importantly, 4-year guaranteed scholarships. As has been noted, coaches can revoke scholarships for non-academic reasons -- "firing" players from a job that allegedly doesn't exist.
All this ruling actually states is that players are employees and that scholarships are salaries. A lot of you guys who are most negative on this news actually agree with the ruling. The fact that employees should be allowed to organize for better benefits is the factor at issue here. And I would think that the limits on transferring further emphasizes how much players are employees and not merely "Students."
I'll go out on a limb and guess that the fear is that this is a can of worms and a snowball that looks to have been given a nudge down the mountain. This, in itself, may not be the exact thing people are speculating about, but this may just be the tip of the iceberg.
It's fair to play devil's advocate here, but I don't believe everyone here is just crying wolf. I think it's understandable for people to wonder if this is a blessing in disguise and the NCAA getting a taste of their own medicine, or if the players are looking a gift horse in the mouth. No reason to beat around the bush, changes may not come at the drop of a hat, but it could eventually send the whole system back to the drawing board.
And don't worry, those idioms are just a drop in the bucket of my whole idiom-repertoire.
Pretty much exactly that's it.
I think players absolutely should get a lot of the things they're asking for, or that people say they should have. If there are gaps in their medical coverage, fix them. If they want protection from being given scummy treatment from scummy coaches, like Les Miles letting a guy move into the dorms and then being told he has no scholarship, absolutely.
And if anyone can name me a union that ever said, "we got what we want, we're good and don't need anything else from you management types," I'd drop my opposition to seeing a union form. There is no demand that, once satisfied, someone will not roil the waters for more. And when they get more, someone else will get less and another (probably male) sport will disappear.
I would also be less concerned about a union if it turns out that all the volleyball players and swimmers and everyone else can get in on the action. That would be real balance. But so far I have never seen an iota of interest from the football and basketball players (such as Ed O'Bannon) for what happens to the other athletes, which is why I hope O'Bannon's lawsuit crashes and burns.
So why couldn't the players petition the NCAA to implement the changes they want. It seems strange to get the NLRB involved and I imagine the IRS might want to take a peek soon too. If college atheletes are employees then it logically follows athletic departments are employers and employers have to get special tax exempt status separately from academic institutions.
Even if you're for or against unionizing, you have to admit that this is pretty damn interesting. It looks like the time for the NCAA to hide behind the "student-athlete" security blanket is finally over. Even if Northwestern eventually prevails on appeal (which it probably will), the NCAA has some serious problems. Hopefully this blow will force their hand. If not, if they stick to their hard line they are going to end up ruining college sports in the end when things eventually blow up.....
Reading through the NLRB report now. Basics: scholarship football players can unionize and are employees. Walk-ons are not.
— Kristi Dosh (@SportsBizMiss) March 26, 2014
Scholarship football players not "primarily students" according to NLRB decision. Spend more time on football than studies.
— Kristi Dosh (@SportsBizMiss) March 26, 2014
NLRB decision would only apply to scholarship football players at private universities, not public universities.
— Kristi Dosh (@SportsBizMiss) March 26, 2014
Also, Northwestern will appeal the ruling to the full NLRB in Washington. And then the case could make it to the Supreme Court. So this is far from a final ruling.
So walk-ons don't spend as much time on football? They don't deserve the protections of he labor unions?
The argument is probably similar to an intern. Intern's aren't "paid" (e.g. scholarship) per say ergo they are not employees even though they often spend more time working than "employees" do.
"Per say ergo?" It's spelled "air go."
So if walk-ons can't join the union could the scholarship players go on strike if a coach decides to give playing time to a walk-on over a scholarship player? Also could the scholarship players union implement seniority rules so that seniors get more playing time over freshmen.
at an opposing public school, I'm not certain I want my student-athletes competing with their paid professionals.
Whoops, mods delete this please...
the NCAA forces basketball and football players to attend college en route to a professional career? Baseball, tennis, Golf, players etc. can compete professionally I believe at any age or at the very least 18 yo, why not hoop or football. Why will the NCAA let these particular athletes go pro? Simple, they are non-revenue generating sports. Someone like Jabari Parker could have made millions after HS, like others. Instead he is forced to make money for the NCAA and Duke. You really think they are concerned about his education when they as well as everyone else knows he will not graduate there within the next 4 yrs??? Not at all, they are going to roll in the cash he generates for them b4 he can make a living for himself, just not right. I know this is an exception to most athletes, but it doesn’t take away the fact he should be able to choose a profession like basketball if someone is willing to pay him for it. He can vote, die for his country, but cannot play professionally outa HS like most other sports???
The NCAA doesn't force this, the professional leagues do.
If those guys want, they can "go pro", the NCAA has no control over that. It's the professional leagues that do not allow players in, not the NCAA.
You realize the NCAA doesn't make the rules about when kids can go pro in football and basketball, right? That's made by the NFL, NBA and their respective player associations. The NCAA is cool with it and likely supports it, but that is not their rule. The NBA made the one year rule so they had fewer busts right out of HS.
"What about the fact that the NCAA forces basketball and football players to attend college en route to a professional career? "
The NFL and NBA players unions collectively bargained those terms into their contracts with the leagues. They have absolutely nothing to do with the NCAA, and the NCAA has no control over them.
The NCAA forced me to go to school for four years and get my chemical engineering degree before anyone would hire me full time too. Despite the fact I was already doing the same job as a co-op. Those bastards! ( yeah that is sarcasm)
But I have a hard time believing the NCAA has absolutely no say in it, they could figure this back doors. It wouldn’t be the first time two separate entity’s collaborated behind closed doo But I have a hard time believing the NCAA has absolutely no say in it, they could figure this back doors. It wouldn’t be the first time two separate entity’s collaborated behind closed doors.
Wrong. I'm not saying the NCAA is pissed about those rules, but these are made for the clear best interest of the pro leagues and are made by their governing bodies. The NFL likes using the NCAA as their development league, so their players show up well coached, physically trained and pre-marketed. It's also helps scouting to have three years of film with comparable levels of competition. Similar reasons for basketball.
but it seems to be too convient for the NCAA not to b involved in anway shape or form, maybe Im wrong and you are correct, that they have zero influence. So how is baseball diff from basketball? Like i said baseball doesnt generate the type of revenue as basketball so imo the NCAA could care less about them staying. The NBA has a D-league now. What does the NBA gain from them attending college 1 yr opossed to the D-league? Im just trying to understand the diff from sport to sport. I wont argue football and the safety factor but baseball VS basketball?
Baseball has always had a far system, so they don't rely on college to develop their players. The NHL is similar to baseball in that regard. Basketball has the D-league, but it's much smaller and is meant for fringe guys, not hot young prospects.
If they were the NCAA would want nothing to do with one and done in basketball, it's the worst thing that could happen to college basketball.
Is this the end of the NCAA as we know it? Perhaps. Is that a good thing because it is using young men to generate piles of money for the few? Perhaps. If players can be paid, is this a taxable event? It probably is. Then is their scholarship also a taxable event? For me the answer is yes.It is compensation and as such is a taxable event. In the final analysis, does the NCAA and major colleges deserve this outcome because they have "used and abused" the young folks? Probably! Will this ultimately usher in the concept of "play for pay?" Probably. Does this have the potential of making a stupid system a profoundly more corrupt system. YES!!!!!!! Do non-revenue sports, and especially women's sports need to be included. That would be a just, not fair, outcome. If it really all about money, I will begin looking for a Div III team to cheer for because these athletes need to finance their own way and then get a day job after graduation!!!! Just like it should be and just like I did!!! In summary, I am sick of kids complaining that they are being used and abused by the "system." Everyone is abused by some system and can cry about it. Here is a great idea: let us return to the pre-WW II period where only the well off could afford higer education and everyone else got a job or joined the military!
... when do all these players get their tax bill?
I blame the NCAA and their backwards policies that punish athletes who attempt to make money outside of the traditional framework.
I understand that a lot of the rules are to minimize the impact of boosters on a program. How is that working out so far? From Cam Newton's father getting a mysterious payment for upgrades to his church to Tattoogate, the NCAA policies have failed to provide a deterrent against this kind of behavior. Instead of cutting a check to those athletes in programs that bring in countless dollars to universities (the primary argument against athletes being treated as regular students), the NCAA forced the action underground, almost encouraging the involvement of shady third-parties.
This whole thing would have been a lot easier if players received a cut of jersey sales (Denard would make more than Brian Cleary), video game licenses (Ed O'Bannon says hello), and television deals (revenue sports benefit the most from this).
Greed killed college athletics as we know it. Super conferences. Corporate sponsorships. Denying athletes to make money through a sport that brings in millions to schools across the country. All of it is part of the same deal.
will be the attorneys that will be paid to argue this for years to come. For the B1G probably time to eliminate Northwestern as a conference member, only due to it "non-public" status as a university. Too bad because of all the schools in the B1G - Northwestern probably derives more money per student from its B1G association than any other school. Their football attendance will nose dive if they aren't in the B1G. But defining public vs. non-public as the criteria will force this to happen.
Very sad development for college sports. Incidently - this is the same Board that refused to let Boeing open a plant in South Carolina because of the State's "right to work" laws. Not surprising they sided with the "union" side of the argument.
Ironically, the paying of players could lead to a huge loss in the ability of those players to even get scholarships. It's a shame.
Everyone arguing that athletes already recieve compensation is (seemingly without knowing it) supporting the notion that they should be recognized as employees.
As soon as you stipulate that they are being "paid" for their "labor" and start arguing about whether or not it is at "market" rates, you have already agreed they are employees. If they are employees, they can seek to unionize.
By that logic, anyone on scholarship is than an employee and should pay taxes on their scholarship. That opens up a can of worms that should not be opened.
I'm not arguing whether or not it is a good thing (jury still a long way out on that), just that the observation that these athletes are already being compensated for their labor leads to the opposite conclusion from that intended. It means they are employees and can organize.
that is a great point and it speaks to what the labor board said when they talked about the scholarships being tied to performance.
Guess the beachfront facility for NW want enough. Wonder if the walk-ons will get to use it. Why don't they get a 'seat at the table'?
I'm trying to think through what this looks like IF this falls in favor, ultimately, of the NW football players. I see a couple possibilities:
1) A union forms, it negotiates with the NCAA re: additional stipends, limits on practice, etc., no major payments in most sports except maybe a modest salary for Division-1 level revenue-generating sports, and things stay mostly the same. In this scenario, a few marginal programs will drop off, schools and NCAA make a little less, but things are mostly the same.
2) The union negotiates for a significant piece of the pie. Title IX kicks in as well perhaps(?) Significant payments for a larger percentage of athletes. In this scenario, I can see a couple possible outcomes:
a. NCAA says, "Screw it," the NFL and NBA, for reasons "completely unrelated," drop requirements re: age or college participation, developmental leagues form, and many athletes avoid college altogether. Participants in traditional NCAA revenue sports are closer to the archetype scholar-athletes. Top athletes either avoid college altogether for the pros (D-League or major league) or go to institutions, even OSU, primarily to "play school." Less time practicing and in the weight room; more time acting like a typical student; product on the field is less elegant, but the fans are much more tied to the schools; less money piled into facilities. In other words, more like it was a century ago.
b. NCAA says, "Screw you, smaller programs." Large programs that can pay survive. Smaller programs drop revenue-generating sports or, perhaps can go to a "scholarship-only" model where they are more like a. above. I.e., the smaller schools work a deal with the union to not pay a salary. Top athletes, on their own, choose the salaried programs to play at and we have a two-tiered NCAA where some programs pay players (and look better on the field) and some programs don't.
What other outcomes am I missing? What about the options above seems unlikely?
An interesting sidelight is that the National Labor Relations Board has no jurisdiction over state institutions. In Michigan, the Michigan Employment Relations Commission would determine the employee status of football players who petitioned for recognition and the right to bargain collectively with M, with MSU, or with any other state college or university.
All the SEC schools are in states where unions are regarded as anathema. State employee unions exist all right, but they have severely truncated, "meet and confer" status that does not require a state employer to bargain to impasse over any mandatory subjects, including salaries and wages or other forms of compensation. Virtually every SEC state is "right-to-work," which means an employee not only doesn't have to join a union to work, he or she doesn't even have to support financially that portion of union activities that directly affect working conditions (a so-called "agency shop"). Chances are that any group of football players who petitioned a state labor relations board in, say, Alabama, for employee status and the right to bargain wouldn't get to first base.
So let's say that NU decides after all to recognize the player's union and negotiates a contract that provides, among other benefits, extra-generous stipends, insurance now and in the future, reduced practice time, and a share of revenues from sales of player's likenesses, as well as a full-ride scholarship in nothing but softball classes. Five-star players about to sign with Nick Satan see this and say "hey, that's a lot better deal than I could get down here," and agree to attend NU instead. NU amasses so many such players that it becomes the nations #1 team, wins the BCS Championship and collects millions from sales of NU athletic gear. Those who want mega-price season tickets at a fabulously renovated Ryan Field have to join a 10-year waiting list. NU has excess millions to spend on non-revenue varsity sports and even adds a few, such as chess and computer gaming. Could it happen?
But couldn't the SEC schools just voluntarily provide similar benefits, or negotiate the same deal with whatever union was formed there?
I hate unions.
... when people freak out about unions.
The right of people to collectively bargain does not mean management needs to acquiesce to the group's demands. This simply gives the workers more leverage to ask for a greater percentage of the pie. It's a shift in the power dynamic, and sometimes that shift is a function of one side taking too much advantage of their power position.
It's a shift in the power dynamic and you wonder why people freak out about it?
... I guess I don't know why the general population freaked out. NCAA, athletic department employees, etc... makes sense. General population -- seems like a pretty minor issue in my life how the spoils are distributed among the parties.
union alone is guarantee of nothing. UM has my union(AFSCME) over a barrel and they are spanking our behinds. Unions are not the dire threat some in this thread make them out to be.
Unions are generally as strong as the money at risk for the opposite side. For college sports, we're talking several billion dollars at stake when you factor in the revenue for the schools, conferences, and NCAA overall. There's a huge amount of power on the players' side; if they decide to strike en masse (unlikely, but theoretically possible), it won't be long until there are widespread changes to appease the players.
We have been working without a contract since 2006.
Labor unions in the SF Bay Area basically held the whole commuter population hostage during BART negotiations that dragged out for like 8 months, striking twice, and threating countless times.
Union approval is at an all time low. Again, in the SF Bay Area, one of the most liberal areas in the Union.
You really dont understand how unions work do you?
As a member of a union for over 30 years i know just how destructive they are to any business. If you really dont think the company needs to acquiesce to them you are just nuts.
Once the union is recognized anywhere....it essentially OWNS the company from that moment forward. The company does not have the option to just pick up its billion dollar plant or building and move somewhere else and get new workers. The union now controls every move the company can make. The company has 2 choices....give in to each and every demand they make....or shut down. IF the comapny balks at the demands...the union then pulls the workers out untill they meet the demands. Either way...the company is screwed.
The union...just like the evil NCAA...exists to make a very few people very powerful and rich. With absolutely NO investment on their part (as opposed to the company which is taking ALL the risk in trying to profit and survive and provide jobs along the way).
Once the company has given in to the union on ANY issue....the union is the de-facto owner of said company. The union never wants less...only more. And more eventually leads to ...nothing.
As i have stated before...and i dont care if people agree or not, this will be the beginning of the end of college sports as we knew it. School after school will simply shut down the athletic departments. Its coming. Bet on it. When only the biggest schools remain...its no longer "college sports played by student athletes". Its just a minor league system for the pros on a much grander scale than it is today.
Why is this the straw that broke the camels back? Why not the conference expansion, B1G shameless expansion of Rutgers and Maryland, espn's billion dollar deal with the sec, the longhorn network, the AT&T rose bowl presented by Visio and chick fil a, etc etc?
This was the naturally progression when the money got out of hand disproportionatly to benefit a handful of athletic departments. If you say college athletics are now ruined I would say it was heading down that path for a long time...
I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't exactly appreciate most of that shit either. In fact I generally hated conference realignment; passionately hate the Rutgers and Maryland thing to the point where I'm going to be rooting for Sparty and Ohio against them; like many here firmly believed that we went to the Copper Bowl last year and not the Eat At My Restaurant Bowl; and think the LHN made Texas look like the biggest raging asshole in the whole college football universe.
Yes, I'd say it's been heading down that path for a while.
Unfortunately, you are way more right about unions than many want to believe. Take a look at the unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities associated with public sector employees abd the unions nationwide that created the problem. You definitely don't have equals sitting together at the negotiating table.
I disagree with you that his is the beginning of the end of college sports as we know it. I think this is just another step toward a disaster. The O'Bannon suit, CTE issues and a host of recent litigations have pushed things in a very negative way. Should the appeal be unsuccessful, this could well be a big nail in the coffin.
I'd rather see the players get more and superfluous staffers who can't spell, count, type, or see get less. Not sure if this is the way to go, but kicking the cartel in the nuts seems like a good start.
However, there are now no scholarships and you must be at least a junior to be eligible to play in any of the professional leagues. Student athletes must then pay their own tuition, books residence, etc. The old system doesn't look so bad does it?
This is what will happen. You'll receive a negotiated stipend and then your on your own. Just like kids that do work study.
A lot of the perks will disappear - tutors, free food and weight rooms etc.
No. What will disappear is 20million dollars being spent on a state of the art rowing facility, etc., because you now can't redistribute the wealth from football to the AD bottom line, but will have to actually pay the talent.
But those state of the art facilities are part of what makes Michigan great. The fact that we support outstanding teams in many sports, not just football. That's something that I'm afraid will change.
I just read the Opinion.
One interesting aspect is that Michigan makes a cameo appearance in the court record. The players' testimony included a detailed hour-by-hour breakdown of Northwestern's trip to Ann Arbor in the fall of 2012 -- the overtime decision set up by Gardner's heave to Roundtree.
"In the case of an away game against the University of Michigan football team on November 9, 2012,the majority of players were required to report to the N Club by 8:20 a.m. for breakfast. At 8:45 a.m., the offensive and defensive coaches directed a walk-thru for their respective squads. The team then boarded their buses at 10:00 a.m. and traveled about five hours to Ann Arbor, Michigan. At 4:30 p.m. (EST), after arriving at Michigan’s campus, the players did a stadium walk-thru and then had position meetings from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The coaches thereafter had the team follow a similar schedule as the home games with a team dinner, optional chapel, and a team movie. The players were once again expected to be in bed by 10:30 p.m. On Saturday, the day of the Michigan game, the players received a wake-up call at 7:30 a.m. and were required to meet for breakfast in a coat and tie by no later than 8:05 a.m. The team then had 20 minutes of meetings before boarding a bus and departing for the stadium at 8:45 a.m. Upon arriving at the stadium, the players changed into their workout clothes and stretched for a period of time. They afterwards headed to the training room to get taped up, receive any medical treatment, and put on their football gear. About 65 minutes before kickoff, the players took the field and did additional stretches and otherwise warmed-up for the game. At noon, the game kicked off and Head Coach Fitzgerald, in consultation with his assistant coaches, was responsible for determining the starting lineup and which substitutions would be made during the course of the game. While most games normally last about three hours, this one lasted about four hours since it went into overtime. Following the game, the coaches met with the players, and some of those individuals were made available to the media for post-game interviews by the Employer’s athletic department staff."
Legislators write them.
What is the chance that congress decides to stick it's nose somewhere it probably doesn't belong to change things. I bet they could actually be bi-partisan if it was to save college football.
Not saying things are that dire yet but with all the silly things politicians say, a 2nd Big Ten school in Illinois. Assuming he forgot Northwestern?
I'd say there's a good chance that Congress will wade in and somehow screw this up.
It's hardly news that big-time college football is essentially a professional sport. All this labor judge did in his opinion was point out the obvious.
I've always thought the Ivy League had it right: No athletic scholarships. Students play the sports for the love of the sport.
Maybe 100,000 people won't come watch on Saturdays. So what.
Northwestern has said they will appeal to the national office so this is not yet final.
Not to make this political, only to state a fact: the national NLRB is stocked with Obama appointees who will be very, very unlikely to make any decisions against unionization. Since this case was bound to end up there no matter who won in Chicago, this was effectively over before it began.
Times, they are a'changing. I wonder what impact this will have on athletics? Might it mean that colleges and universities decide to end their support for intercollegiate athletics as we know it today?
It's not unheard of. U-Chicago certainly did it early in the last century. Michigan may not, but Northwestern and other private schools certainly could.
The schools and the NCAA are going to fight this for as long as possible. From the university’s perspective liability related to health issues has to be potentially the biggest concern. If the players are employees they can put the school on the hook for medical cost related to their playing days that can last a life time. If you need your knee replaced at 40 the schools must pay. Truly debilitating conditions such as dementia, ALS, etc. can have huge cost. The research about brain injury is still uncertain but there is potential that a wide range of conditions that appear later in life, with very high cost to manage, will be linked to the individuals time playing college sports. What if a former player commits suicide and is shown to have CTE. Does the school have to compensate the family? Changing the players status to an employee makes it much more likely and at a minimum will lead to many costly lawsuits.
I suppose proving the link from playing to specific injuries/conditions can be difficult but even if the university is able to prevail they will face huge legal cost associated with this. Also, would a ruling declaring the players employees be retroactive? If so, does this mean that thousands of former players can now sue the schools related to medical issues they suffered later in life that are linked to their playing days? In theory they could try to recover both the medical cost and money lost when they could not work.
Do you think the schools have a handle on the potential liability associated with all this? It seems like we could be talking about billions of dollars.
I think every athlete should get minimum wage per practice hour ultimately.
Don't give me the ''They get free schooling and they CHOSE what major to be in'' argument. Most of the guys playing sports would not even come close to even getting in to Michigan if they weren't good at their sport. You don't think schools steer guys into easy classes because of that? A person that doesn't have a high IQ isn't magically going to understand physics just because he has a ton of help available.
You mean the school that fought the creation of this union?
Not to mention a huge amount of free marketing for his personal brand, which he has taken advantage of.
Nobody claims that college athletes literally get nothing. But compared to the value of all the blue #16 jerseys he sold, the value of the hours of airtime ESPN sold with photos and teasers of his runs, and the value of the tickets people bought to see him, even the things he got are a pittance. Tennis prodigies don't generate revenue; that's why nobody claims they should get paid.
I'm not sure the answer is a "union", but rather the explotive NCAA rules that prohibit the players retaining the rights to their own marketing value.
Why shouldn't Denard have been able to endorse products? Wheaties w/ a generic blue jersey. $4 water botttles w/ a picture of Denard for drinking on Saturday afternoons.
Addressing this type of anti-competitive, monopolistic NCAA hoarding would go a long way to opening the gates to the revenue streams by those that are most responsible for it. No one-size fits all player agreement can do that.
It's nothing but a shill for the unions anymore.
This is no where near over.
NW already said they're going to make an appeal in Washington.
The problem is that the NCAA and the institutions are evincing two different narratives.
The NCAA can't be crying student-athlete when Pat Fitzgerald/Nick Saban/Insert-coach-here is demanding his players take certain classes, forcing them to show up at 5 AM practice after finishing a workout at 11 PM the night before, and lugging the players on road trips to different states in lieu of Friday class.
This whole thing is a clusterfuck.
My take has long been that athletes don't need to be paid by schools. But I do think they should be payed likeness fees on shirts with their numbers on them. I also think that they should join SAG and AFTRA and get union scale for being on TV.
My main beef, though, is still as it has always been: players should be allowed to earn money on the free market from wheover wants to give it to them, with the obvious exception of gambling interests or anything that could affect the integrity of the results of any game. Let boosters give players money if they want. Let players take "no show" jobs if they want. Let them be in TV commercials and make money signing autographs or paraphernalia if they want to.
If they stopped robbing the players, they wouldn't have to pay them.
I worked for the Michigan Daily all through college. I got paid for writing articles and editors got paid more, even though it was a priceless privelege to be a part of one of the top 2-3 school papers in the country etc.
I didn't feel bad for getting a paycheck for doing a thing that was mostly educational because it was also a job and it generated (ad) revenue, and I felt like my contributions provided value.
The NCAA has been resting on absolutes. Lots of people are afraid if you cross that line at all that the whole system will collapse. Maybe it will and college athletics are going to be pro leagues someday but I doubt it since the class that was certified wasn't the 20 athletes at the 30 schools that generate disproportionate revenue. The union has to represent all of the players, and they're not well served by Denard making $1 million; they're served by stipends for spending money, and having agents to look out for their interests in decisions, and in lifelong medical services for injuries sustained. And the NCAA can only give up what it negotiates. Like everything else in our free capitalist country, what product we end up with will depend on what the people making it agree on.
Wait til they get a W-2 for the value of their scholarship.
As soon as these athletes are required to meet the academic standards of the university that they want to play for, they'll retract.
That's the big one, in my opinion. They feel so slighted that they're not getting paid "what they're worth." Well, if they couldn't catch a ball or tackle someone hard or run really fast, they would have to meet the academics of the school. At Michigan, it's a 3.9 and a 31 ACT. At Alabama? 3.6 and a 27 ACT.
Requirement to accept an athletic scholarship? 2.3 and an 18 ACT.
So basically, an athlete gets to skip the academic requirements of the average student, gets room, board, tuition, fees paid for, gets special services for school, health insurance, gifts, travel opportunities, and other things, but that's not payment?
This is actually a pretty good point. Hadn't thought about that.
You are inadvertantly making the players' point for them. Given what you say, it is even more clear that the Universities are bringing these players to campus not as students (primarily) but as employees doing a job. How else could you explain the academic discrepancies you detailed.
Once you get there and agree they are primarily employees (not students) they are allowed to try and organize.
People are continually failing to realize here that the issue is NOT whether or not players are currently compensated fairly for their work. Maybe they are and maybe they are not. The issue is that, given that they are there primarily to do a job (and receive compensation,) they are employees and have the same rights as other employees.
Is that the players have already been given opportunities for an education that ordinary people cannot receive based on their ability to do something else. The University does not HAVE to bend their rigorous academic standards for them, they choose to. And seeing as how 95% of all athletic departments lose money and it has to be subsidized from the tuition of the non-athletes, the university is not benefiting from their athletic department. They choose to be DI and offer scholarships. They could be DIII, where the athletes play without athletic compensation and have to get into school per the requirements of the school, not the NCAA.
What the 20 starlets want is a piece of the pie that is media revenue. At the expense of the non-profit sports. Do you know that the majority of female athletes have partial scholarships and supplement their athletic scholarships with academic ones, meaning that they had to qualify for academics as well as athletics? What about the baseball players that went to college instead of the minor leagues because they wanted a college degree? Or wrestling, which focused on Olympic aspirations, like track and field? The profitable sports HAPPEN to be football and basketball, the two sports that have taken advantage of the NCAA requirements and profited off of their popularity, but if the starlets get what they want, the 500+ athletes who are going to school on scholarship and the thousands of athletes who aspire to play Division 1 ball won't get to do that anymore.
The NCAA needs to tighten the rules in some areas, but these athletes don't need to be paid directly. They could choose to sit on their behinds for 1/3 years until they are eligible for the draft. They don't, and they get compensated approximately 90,000 a year for it.
All of this will be collectively bargained by those designated as emplyees by the NLRB. They are employees. Nothing you wrote contradicts that. You just seem to think they are already fairly compensated. The players don't think that. Fine. Let's negotiate.....
I wonder if this will have any impact on schools like Michigan that stand behind their scholarship offers no matter what the outcome of talent is. If you ask me, if you call yourself an employee, then you better be prepared to be treated like an employee.