If you read the whole ESPN article there was a part at the end about how the main law firm leading this case has already set up a company to distribute the potential proceeds to players should they win. One of the consultants of this company is Sonny Vaccarro. If you don't know the name, he is one of the slimiest guys associated with AAU basketball over the past 20+ years. Further signs that everything about college sports is headed towards the crapper.
OT: NCAA in Trouble on O'Bannon Lawsuit
I am always for collegiate athletes getting a cut of that $, then I always think of that famous little saying....THE TEAM THE TEAM THE TEAM. Once you go to the next level, you won't be playing for a TEAM anymore, you'll be playing for a contract. Would collegiate athletes think the same way pro athletes do???? Would they lose that 100% team mentality?
I think that line of thought is silly and overly utopian. Being paid and altruism are not mutually exclusive.
That's like saying we shouldn't pay artists commissions for fear of corrupting the purity of their art (though many socialists would agree with that point but that's not our present social model).
I'm for people pushing for a greater share of the value of their labor-power every time.
The ESPN article says more than a dozen law firms have invested over $20 million in the case. They wouldn't have done that unless they were pretty sure they were going to win and win big.
The value of a college athlete is not what you think. There are very few that have any real monetary value and even fewer worth their scholarship. Even if you go go off the promise your value is determined by how easily you are replaced, then in the last 10 years you are looking at very few transcendent players, Tebow, Reggie Bush...Vince Young even. But there are 115 other guys who aren't worth that.
Looking at the financials, thinking that paying players is financially possible is absurd. Michigan fans are spoiled because we are always one of the money makers. Schools like FSU and UVA for example borrow money to balance their athletic budget.
If players are paid, hypothetically and lets say given a check for the value of their scholarship, how many would pan out? These college athletes are interns in a sense getting unprecedented amounts of job exposure to a potential career, while also being educated (if they choose) for another career.
I have thought about this issue for many years and I always come back to the same conclusion. To understand the proposal there are some basic claims I take as facts. 1) Colleges make money off of the student athletes on the field/court. 2) Colleges pay a lot of money to help these student athletes develop their skill set for the next level. 3) Colleges spend a lot of money trying to educate these student athletes to prepair them for life after college. 4) Student atheletes expose themselves to significant risk for injury and bodily harm and the school profits.
If you agree to all four "facts", then I propose every school has to invest money into insurance policies for each student athelete. Should the student athelete be injured they get the insurance policy payout upon graduation. They have a good financial start and a good education to not blow it. If they get drafted, no pay out. The school helped the student athelete achieve their financial payout no different than any other student earning a degree.
Yes, this proposal requires a third party independent medical organization. I'm sure the NCAA can scrounge up the dollars required to make that happen.
countless times. Ive never found anyone with a good balanced argument for players getting paid. This is a great, and fair idea,
What about, "The players help to produce entertainment that creates billions of dollars of wealth. Since they help to produce the entertainment, they should get some of the wealth?"
I mean, you might not agree with it, it might not be perfect or even right, but it seems to me to be a pretty good and balanced argument.
A lacrosse player or a gymnast isn't adding to the wealth, they're taking from it and returning very little. You're basically talking about football and basketball players, and of that class, a very small subset of really good ones playing for major university programs.
Right. And those are the ones we're talking about. Those are the ones who should be free to negotiate and get paid in money.
I would also point out that athletes in non-revenue generating sports do add a lot of value to a university. Universities aren't dumb and they aren't charities. If their scholarship money was being wasted, they'd fix it. But the way things are now, a women's underwater curling player does add value to the university through things like qualifying for Title IX, image including political correctness, publicity, etc.
oneof the better proposals I have seen.
I have to say as well, that people pretending the athletes don't get compensated for what they do boggles my mind. I don't know exactly how much tuition is in the USA but I have to imagine that an out of state tuition plus lodging and meals has to be nearing 50,000.00 per year. I know lots of people who have univeristy degrees and don't make that much money in their jobs. Let's not pretend they are doing this for free.
(1) I don't agree that athletes "expose themselves to significant risk for injury and bodily harm" as a general rule. In some sports, athletes have an increased risk of injry/harm, and in some no greater a risk or eben a lesser risk due to conditioning, etc.
(2) If the students really face a significant risk for injury, then insurance for them will likely be extremely expensive.
That doesn't mean that some balance between risk and reward on the players' parts cannot (or should not) be reached, such that players don't bear the entire burden of risk when they play. I'm just not convinced that a university-financed standard insurance policy is the best route.
Sorry, but this is a terrible idea. If you believe that the school and the student are in business together and generating wealth together, then they should be free to work together to create whatever contract they like. Let them sort it out. End of story.
If you make rules that require convoluted insurance schemes and restricted pay and education requirements, then in the creation and subsequent navigation of bureaucratic red tape, you are destroying some of the wealth that the student and the school have generated. Students are free, universities are free - or they should be. Let them negotiate however they like. Adding strange requirements like "pay can only be in the form of insurance policies and scholarships" is what got the NCAA into this mess in the first place.
Because the government has already said under Title IX you have treat the athletes equally, so you can't give something to the money earners and not support your women's field hockey team because no one watches them.
Yes, that's my whole point. I'm talking about what should happen, what I hope happens, not what it is now. Let the universities and the athletes negotiate freely without any layers of bureaucracy on top. No NCAA telling them what to do, no federal government telling them what to do via Title IX or anything else, no health care insurance companies telling them how much insurance policies are worth, etc.
Complaining that the universities are telling the universities what to do is absurd.
No university is required to belong to the NCAA. No athlete is required to attend an NCAA university (or any university at all). Those schools that opt to belong to the NCAA have to follow the rules they set up for themselves, however. Those students who choose to attend NCAA insitituions must follow those rules, as well.
Those universities that don't want to be bound by NCAA rules can simply leave the NCAA. The only penalty they will suffer is that NCAA schools will not play against them. Those students who don't want to be bound by NCAA rules can attend a non-NCAA university, or noty attend college at all.
...paying college athletes, even a modest cut from TV & video games royalties, will be the end of college sports. Once players start getting paid, the entire dynamic changes. It becomes professional sports and suddenly it's colleges competing with the NBA & NFL for talent & fans' attention. (And just who do you think will win out if the Wolverines are competing against the Lions?*)
This sounds crazy, but I think it's more likely that colleges would step away from licensing video games & player jerseys than start giving players a cut. At a more extreme level, I could even see the colleges (well, maybe not the SEC) going the way of the Ivy League and simply eliminating scholarship athletes altogether. A school as large as Michigan with what, 30,000 undergrads(?), could certainly find a hundred yound men to field a team. Even though the quality would be lower, most fans are more interested in rooting for dear old alma mater than they are a bunch of 4 star out-of-state athletes.
One way or another, it seems we are nearing a watershed moment in college athletics and some big, big changes are probably in the future...and we might be unpleasantly surprised by what we end up with.
*I don't mean literally playing each other on the field. But rather, if the Michigan Wolverines are now a professional entity paying players and likewise trying to turn a profit themselves, do you really think they'll let talent (e.g., Tom Brady, Lamarr Woodley, etc) just walk away after four years development & investment to join the NFL?
The NCAA athlete in revenue generating sports is already a professional athlete. Have you seen their schedules? Looked at their workloads? It's a job and most of them do it very well.
The only question is how they are getting paid for their work. Right now, they get paid in scholarships and a form of certification for work in the NFL or NBA. Like nearly all forms of certification, it constitutes rent-seeking behavior by the already-certified and the certifying institution. Rent-seeking = bad, unless you're Keynes or something.
I hope that this brings doomsday for the NCAA. FIFA, the IOC, and the NCAA are all blights on the sporting world. If even one of the three goes down in my lifetime, I'll be happy.
From someone posting on a college football (sports) blog. Wanting the destruction and end of something you're a fan of doesn't make a lot of sense. Because if it goes to your ultimate desires it won't exist anymore.
Just because there wouldn't be an NCAA doesn't mean there wouldn't be college sports.
If the "NCAA athlete in revenue generating sports" is "already a professional athlete," then so are those in the non-revenue-generating sports. The NRG-sport athletes have the same kinds of schedules and workloads as the revenue-generating-sport athletes. If fairness is what we are seeking to maximize, then all athletes have to get paid. If the revenue-generating-sports athletes want to get paid and don't want to share the pay with the NRG-sport athletes, then that's rent-seeking behavior on theur part, and "rent-seeking = bad, unless you're Keynes or something."
If the NCAA "goes down" ion your lifetime, it will be replaced by something indistinguishable from it, because the university presidents who are the NCAA want either the NCAA or something indistinguishable from it.
Those presidents who don't want the NCAA can just convince their trustees to withdraw from it. No one is forced to be part of the NCAA, and no athlete is forced to go to an NCAA insitution (or any institution of higher learning at al).