Looks like a college players union is here
enough to spend money on them / write their programs a check?
What does the color of one's skin have to do with anything?
I still can't believe you made the cut that saw M-Wolverine go.
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.
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."
Correct.
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.
of the Southern part of Illinois...we call this the "Chicago factor."
Cali passes the minimum wage to 10.........somthing.
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!
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.
Walk-ons aren't being included because the NLRB are accepting the players' scholarship as a form of currency/compensation (ironically, just as many of the anti-unionization voices in this thread believe it should be viewed). Without the scholarship, it's difficult to define walk-ons as "employees," thus no protection. It's unfortunate but understandable. They might find a way to correct this down the road.
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.
I've never once in over 30 years of fandom and matriculation tuned in or attended a Michigan football or basketball game to see a particular player in action. If Denard would have played somewhere else, my interest level in Michigan football would have been no different.
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.
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.
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.
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.