What if College Athletes were Allowed to Make Money from Boosters and Endorsements?
Both the College Athletes Players Association and growing support for the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit are in the news today. As someone who has long advocated allowing players to take money from whoever wants to pay them as long as it doesn't affect the integrity of the results of games, I am happy to see this.
To me, this raises a question: "What if players were allowed to take money?"
In Ann Arbor, this question is most relevant to basketball fans due to impending player decisions, the current structure of the NBA draft and NCAA rules. Players who are guaranteed first round picks are giving up a lot of money to come back to school. But what if they didn't have to give up that money?
Imagine Nik Stauskas being allowed to accept booster money and endorsements. Does anyone here think he couldn't make more endorsement money next season as an elite colelge athlete than as an NBA rookie?
Stauskas could sign an individual apparel contract with Adidas. He could appear in regional commercials for national businesses such as Dick's Sporting Goods, which would present an opportunity for wordplay such as, "Nik's Sporting Goods." Toss in a restaurant or two, an automobile dealership and a few appearances at corporate outings during the summer, and Nik could do just fine in Ann Arbor next season.
This step alone could convince a lot of college players to stay around for four years, realizing that their level of fame will probably never be as high as when they are elite players in an elite program.
Iti will be too late for us to see what would have happened if Nik had stayed, but I think it will happen within the next five years. AFAIC, it can't happen soon enough.
in favor of establishing trust funds. The players get the money when they earn their degree.
I'd much rather see the athletes be rewarded for their commitment, sacrifice and hard work than see another multi-millionaire coach or athletic director.
I'm also in favor of the NCAA making players take a test every year as well, opposed to that stupid formula they use now based off graduation, that somehow Kentucky keeps getting perfect marks.
that the people that handled D. Rose's SAT could probably get Kentucky through a qualifying test with flying colors.
God, can you even imagine a world where things like superior resources and past success were the determining factors in recruiting? If such a day were to come, schools like Miami of Ohio would never be able to nab the top recruiting class in the country like they are now.
* to their revenue streams between schools?
* to all academic departments?
Major college D1 sports became a billion-dollar professional business a long ago, with the coaches, administrators, and universities profiting handsomely.
It was one thing for the schools/NCAA to restrict the revenue streams from the players in the 70s when the schools/NCAA were restricting the revenue streams for themselves by limiting conferences to one bowl appearance, teams to only 2-3 TV appearances per year.
In 2014, if it makes more money, it's blessed by the NCAA. Restricting access to those revenue streams from the significant players that generate it is complete hypocrisy in 2014. And as how to figure out how it's divided? No one has to. Let the players and their agents negotiate the spontaneous order.
There already are minor league football teams. Any kid who wants to get paid right out of high school can play for them, if he is good enough.
People will object that few players from minor league teams ever make it to the pros, and this is true. Minor league teams cannot afford the coaching and facilities that major colleges can offer, and lack the exposure of the college game. But that is beside the point; if a kid feels like getting paid right away, he can try for that; he he feels it is in his best interests to forgo pay in favor of exposure, coaching, facilities, and the like, he can do that.
So, I agree with you that players should probably get some better compensation (and agree that it should be ALL players, since they are all making the same sacrifices), but just want to point out that your wish for a minor league option is, in fact, not a wish at all.
"In 2014, if it makes more money, it's blessed by the NCAA."
False. This was not even true before 2014.
"Restricting access to those revenue streams from the significant players that generate it is complete hypocrisy in 2014."
Please learn what the word "hypocrisy" means before misusing it again. Thanks. You might want to also look up "hyperbole" while you have the dictionary open.
"I'd much rather see the athletes be rewarded for their commitment, sacrifice and hard work than see another multi-millionaire coach or athletic director."
True. If we take volunteer part-time coachs and athletic department officials, we won't need to pay any salaries, and can devote that money to the students. I'm sure any athlete would rather make a decent salary at Michigan and get shit coaching than get decent coaching and a shit salary. AmIright?
but it becomes tricky because if players can take money from boosters then recruiting becomes even messier than it already is. Sign here and we guarantee a booster will buy your autographed picture fo x dollars
I think that players should be allowed to recieve income from outside sources... I agree wholeheartedly...
jdon
If this is the solution, then you've reduced college footbal at least to like 10 teams who will Yankees all the best athletes and destroy any semblence of competition. Maybe college basketball would have more competition because it costs less to field a team, but it would still destroy much of the parity that college basketball enjoys right now. Maybe it will never happen because the big companies have buisness to run, but what Nike starts saying "you get an endorsement if you come to Oregon". Or UA with Maryland. I think this would lead to a complete destruction of competitional fairness and result in a major league of the teams with large fan bases and boosters affording good teams, and then crap below it. If that's what you want out of college sports, then fine. But it's not what I want, and I won't watch it. There's a reason I don't watch professional sports.
Miami (The U not Ohio) and SMU would probably be alternating years of National Championships in football
It was one thing for good-ol' boy boosters in the 70s/80s to pay dozens of thousands of dollars under the table in an environment involving tens of millions of dollars across D1.
It's entirely different if it is legal and it costs hundreds of thousands per top athlete in clear daylight in an environment involving billions of dollars across D1.
"...advocated allowing players to take money from whoever wants to pay them as long as it doesn't affect the integrity of the results of games..."
I can't think of a better way to ensure the destruction of the integrity of results than to allow payment by outside individuals and entities to collegiate athletes, and the culprits will the same as they've always been: those who stand to make millions by betting on the outcome of games.
It doesn't require a crude, unsophisticated scenario of Sal and Vinny personally delivering ten grand in unmarked bills to a power forward in a deserted parking lot, either. It can take the form of normal money laundering, where gambling interests invest in "clean" third parties, which then in turn "sponsor" an athlete.
I'm not saying it will happen immediately, or that it will happen everywhere, but it will happen. A rudimentary acquaintance with human nature will tell you it's an inevitability. And once it does, and once it's found out, the ramifications would be severe for college athletics. If even five percent of results are thought to be tainted, then the whole enterprise gets smeared.
This is one rule I never understood. If I was on a need based or merit based scholarship going to UofM and for some reason Sprite wanted me to star in an advertisement, I could without any repercussions. I don't see why the "Scholar-Athletes" should be any different than their peers.
It is hard to believe that anyone who can operate a keyboard is intellectually limited that they cannot see the difference between allowing outside interests to own the labor of an athlete, and them owning the labor of a non-athlete student.
First of all, who gains by you, a student, going to Alabama vesus Vanderbilt? We know who gains in the case of, say, the country's best running nack. Second, how can you, a student, make any serious money for the entity that owns your labor? We know how the running back could make money for those who own his labor.
This is pretty much common sense. It is kind of sad that you don't have the ability to see it, but I take solace in the fact that, when you say "I don't see why..." you are commenting on your lack of ability, not on the issue of who owns an athelete's labor.
I agree with your point. In addition to that, a student on an academic scholarship can have a job if they want. Football players spend 40 hours a week on their sport. Between class and football, they don't have time to work.
I agree with your point. A football player gets room, board, tuition, books, and spending money. What would they want to get a job for, even though they only work 40 hours a week on football for part of the year?
If you want college to become the pros then sure, why not. While we're at it, just make tests and classes optional.
"Does anyone here think he couldn't make more endorsement money next season as an elite college athlete than as an NBA rookie?"
I think you're off by a ton here. Maybe if Nik were the only college player allowed to make money from endorsements, but he'd have lots of competition.
Then what about allowing players who sit on the bench to have the unrestricted right to transfer to another school to get playing time and more money, and play immediately, whether in or out of conference?
What about allowing the richer schools to act in a free market, and pay the players larger salaries than poorer schools? It might be hard even for wealthy Michigan to catch Alabama, Texas and Wisconsin (!):
In fact, 2012-13 revenues rank Michigan 7th, and Texas vastly outgrosses everyone, thus would be able to pay players the most:
1. Texas, $165,691,486
2. Wisconsin (!), $146,366,405
3. Alabama, $143,393,059
4. Florida, $129,505,644
5. Oklahoma, $123,805,661
6. Ohio State, $123,604,626
7. Michigan, $122,742,252
Salary caps are the solution, you say? Not so fast. Congress would have to pass a special exception to the antitrust laws to make that happen, as they did with the NFL.
College football would be a professional sport.
Now, I understand the argument about the greater fairness to the players in making it a professional sport. It makes a lot of sense, given the players' hard work and responsibilities. And in some ways, it already is.
Given the short time a college player is eligible (or would that change, too?), in fairness, you'd have to allow unlimited free agency every year, so that players could maximize their income during their playing days.
As with coaches, there'd be bonuses for certain accomplishments - league championships, bowl games, national titles, etc.
On a personal level, I kind of enjoy the myth of the D-I student-athlete, but today I recognize it for what it is. A myth.
And I seriously wonder if colleges and universities have any business sponsoring professional sports teams as part of their educational mission? For me - and this is just a personal reaction, of course - I think Michigan should not be in the business of operating a professional sports franchise, so I'd be one who advocated creating something like the Ivy League, prohibitng scholarships for players, and playing lower division athletics.
Meantime, I'll watch Michigan football with nostalgia until the day they go full-pro and pay players more than a scholarship. At that point, I won't be a fan.
Thanks for the info, the numbers are supposed to represent total athletic department revenue, not just football revenue. I didn't make them up, they came from this site, which could have certain ones wrong, but I checked the numbers against the UM Athletic Department budget for 2012-13 and the numbers for the projected revenues and the amounts reported in this article match up pretty well:
http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2014/january/20/college-football-arms…
Our football-only revenue is still subtantially behind Texas (by about $20,000,000), according to Forbes. Our football-related expenses are also behind Ohio State, Texas, and some others, according to the same article.
But I'm still not excited about universities fielding professional teams, and apparently you feel the same way.
on a building project. They're projecting an extra $20M in donations this year. Donations are a significant revenue stream for most, if not all, schools.
So much Tater.
Ebay is their sponsor but that contract may be up for renewal. I think the deer antler spray company and Bullough's PED manufacturer are jockeying for sponsorship position. Armstrong and Canseco are the pitchmen.
Every year,college football players will congregate in Las Vegas, waiting for an audience with Sheldon Adelson before the season begins in order to audition for their "campaign contributions."
The college football championship game will be renamed the $heldon Adel$on College Football Champion$hip Game $ponsored by the La$ Vega$ $and$ Corporation, parent company of Venetian Macao Limited and operator of the Venetian Re$ort Hotel Ca$ino and the $ands Expo and Convention Center.
Would the Big House be full?
Then why does Michigan pay Hoke ~ $5 million if its all just in the Michigan name.
Maybe because Brady Hoke's salary isn't "all D1 coaching salaries"?
Think, THEN post.
When I've followerd the train of though of allowing NCAA athletes to make whatever money they want from agents and boosters and the use of their likeness, the one wall I always come up against is the use of their time. If they already spend 40 hours a week on their sport(countable and non-countable hours) and then spend 40 hours a week on class, where does the time come from to go to autograph signings and paid meet and greets? I really want players like Denard to be able to make money from all their talent and hard work while they are in school but I just don't see enough time for making money along with school and practice.
I'm all for finding some reasonable and fair means of better compensating college athletes--particularly given the obscene amounts made by bowl pool administrators, athletic directors, head coaches etc--yet what the OP proposes is simply the NBA/NFL lite. It would have very little to do with college and the college experience--just considering it makes me feel a little dirty.
I am wondering where the cutoff point is between acceptable salaries and "obscene" ones. You seem to think that Brandon, Hoke, Beilein, et make too much, but how would you get good coaches to come to Michigan unless you offer competitive salaries?
I happen to agree with you that the players should get more compensation (though not pay), but don't think so because I think someone else is getting too much and so we have to give players more to punish those making too much right now. I think the players should get more compensation no matter what happens to DB's salary, or BH's, or JB's. I think that the compensation should come in mandatory limits to total hours per week devoted to football, better medical coverage over time, and better access to school after the player's career is over (I like the "playing years +1" concept). Like you, I think paying players as employees would make the sport dirty.
Where I would like college sports to be is one thing--a thing that will never exist.
My complaint about salaries is macro. I totally appreciate that one has to provide competitive salaries and, hence, my complaint is not what Brandon, Hoke etc make vis-a-vis other ADs and coaches--I expect us to pay competitively--but rather the fact that these types of salaries etc are inappropriate in college environment--particularly when the actual product gets relatively little (scholarships are not to be sneezed at though). If coaches want to make pro level money, then they should coach in the pros. That is what we already expect of athletes.
So you do NOT believe that the market should decide things like salaries? It already does for athletes; any football player who wants to play for money right out of high school can try to do so, just as any coach can try to get a pro team to pay him or her.
I understand the idea that college coaching and administration salaries seem out of line. They seem out of line to me as well. As do pro athlete salaries, many baning executive salaries/bonuses, etc. Seeming out of line, though, doesn't mean that they must be changed, and none of them has anything to do with what college athletes deserve.
again. It seems that your trying to make this a capitalism versus, I can only surmise, socialism thing. But as I clearly stated, I do believe the market dictates "things like salaries'.
Michigan needs to pay to attract the best coaches. I just believe (ideally and not naively) that colleges should still be principally about education and that college athletics have become too big--and that , in the abstract, coaches etc salaries are too high. The obvious example is that major college football coaches and ADs earn more than college presidents---and I get the "they bring in more money" argument. But they shouldn't IMHO. Similarly, at schools like Michigan, the academic programs and athletic departments are competing directly for many of the same dollars. The more Brandon may be able to milk out of big donors and even the smaller amounts season ticket holders must come up with are almost certainly at least some of the same dollars that would have gone to the university itself.
And finally, exactly how may athletes go pro immediately after high school? The NFL requires athletes to wait 3 years after high school before entering the draft.
If I am missing or misconstruing your argument, maybe you are not articulating it very well. I am merely pointing out that market forces drive salaries in a competitive arena,which hiring college coaches surely is. Stating that "these types of salaries etc are inappropriate in college environment--particularly when the actual product gets relatively little" isn't an argument - it is a mere assertion.
The issue of how much and in what manner players should be compensated is entirely independent of coaching salaries. It is independent of how much the athletic department takes in. It is dependent on what the athletic department is asking the players to sacrifice.
I also don't believe that the school is losing money because the athletic department is taking in money. The university has exceeded its fundraising goals for years. In 2013 alone, it got four donations of $50 million or more, totaling $310 million. That's roughly two-and-a-half times what the total athletic department income was last year. Total giving to the university the last two years was on the order of $1.7 billion. The athletic department took in some $240 million from all sources over those two years.
Football players may go pro immediately after high school by playing in one of the football minor leagues. What the NFL requires is moot, since those leagues are not the NFL. Neither are the NCAA and NAIA, for that matter.
for your own limitations. I just wish I could have back the 5 minutes of my life that l wasted on you.
I went back and briefly read your other posts on this topic. Wow--you are not only arrogant and nasty, but really kind of an ass.
Bye.
when one is reduced to making ad hom arguments, it is because one is out of intellectual arguments. That's where you seem to be, so I agree that this discussion is over.