Jim Harbaugh expresses concern about prospect of NCAA players unionizing
"The one thing they probably need to look at is, if they are paid something and they become employees, there would be a real chance that they would be taxed, that their scholarship would be taxed as a taxable benefit," Harbaugh told reporters on the weekly Big Ten coaches conference call.
"I don't know if they've really looked at that and wondered if they might not be better off in a situation that they have (now). That's my question. The youngsters might be in a worse position if they're paid something, some amount of money and they become employees of the university."
October 8th, 2015 at 11:44 AM ^
we shouldn't have been allowed to pay Harbaugh whatever we wanted. It should have been capped at some fixed amount that is the same for all college coaches. Because hiring Harbaugh and paying him 4M a year sure as hell isn't parity, it's already had a discernible (thankfully) impact on competitiveness.
Any of the several comments suggesting letting payers privately transact as adults have the right to do destroys the "parity" of college football (or what's left of it) loses some credibility with me immediately-- we are not talking about a level playing field to begin with [ed: in fairness, you acknowledge current lack of true parity and you're arguing that this will make an uneven system worse, but I'm going to ignore that because then I wouldn't be able to respond as stridently here].
What I'd really like to see is someone just come out and say what they're thinking: "This is an awesome form of entertainment that I love and I'm afraid of anything that might impact my enjoyment of the product." That, I understand.
October 8th, 2015 at 4:47 PM ^
Just because I pointed out that the NFL has adopted certain measures to limit market competition for players and among franchises (revenue sharing, salray caps, worst teams draft first, etc.) in order to foster playing field parity does NOT mean that I argued in favor of every conceivable leveling policy in college football (such as salary caps for head coaches).
So take your straw man an go knock him down somewhere else.
October 8th, 2015 at 7:38 AM ^
Not at all. The money would be shifted to the individuals getting the media attention. The team spirit would certainly suffer if the linemen are getting peanuts to make it possible for the not-very-talented-but-much-lauded-and-highly-paid running back to get his gaudy yards. Why should they block for that asshole?
There already is a pro system. Players who want to make money, rather than play for college, can go make money right away. The argument that the NCAA is somehow forcing them into peonage doesn't withstand even the most trivial of bullshit checks, and the idea that boosters are informed consumers is silly.
October 8th, 2015 at 8:00 AM ^
The NFL bars players from entering the draft until they are three years out of high school, so you cannot go make money right away. Your only realistic option to play football (absent doing something like Alex Swieca did by going to play in Israel) is to play in college for largely just in-kind compensation.
October 8th, 2015 at 10:43 AM ^
"There already is a pro system. Players who want to make money, rather than play for college, can go make money right away."
"This is 100% incorrect"
... then you proceed to point out exactly how he is correct, even giving an example.
Players who want to make money, rather than play for college, can go make money right away - in the CFL, in other leagues outside the USA, and in numerous semi-pro leagues around the USA.
October 8th, 2015 at 1:22 PM ^
Forcing someone to move outside of the country to find employment is just ridiculous.
These are people with an extremely high level of talent in an extremely marketable field, but because of the NFL's monopoly system, they have to either 1) work without payment for an NCAA team, 2) work for minimal (or more likely zero) payment for a semi-pro team, or 3) self-deport..to be paid very little money well below the market rate. Not for nothing, choosing either of the latter two options would be devastating to your future potential earnings.
There's no realistic option to get paid and it's absurd to pretend there is.
October 8th, 2015 at 3:28 PM ^
These are people with an extremely high level of talent in an extremely marketable field, but because of the NFL's monopoly system, they have to either 1) work without payment for an NCAA team, 2) work for minimal (or more likely zero) payment for a semi-pro team, or 3) self-deport..to be paid very little money well below the market rate.
False.
Whatever the market pays IS the market rate. You can argue the market is unfair, or that they would be paid more in a diffferent (more free) market - but they aren't being paid below market rate.
October 9th, 2015 at 5:06 PM ^
It's amusing as hell to see Dan84 argue simultaneously that these players have "an extremely marketable skill" and, at the same time, argue that the players are screwed because buyers won't pay enough for those skills.
You are correct that the market rate is what the market pays. The problem these players have is that they do npot, in fact, have a "highly marketable" skill at all; they have a highly specialized skill, and there are damned few buyers. It isn't absurd at all that the buyers are going to be very picky about who they hire and how much they pay, because there are literally thousands of sellers for every position the buyers want to fill. That's how markets* work.
* not that the football market is a very free one, given the fact that buyers must, by definition, belong to one cartel or another and thus entry costs are high, but that's the nature of the work that is to be performed.
October 7th, 2015 at 10:25 PM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 6:31 AM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 8:26 AM ^
Except scholarship athletes already get a room and board stipend if they don't live in the dorms and it is currently untaxable.
October 7th, 2015 at 9:20 PM ^
I'm all for college players having more rights, but he's probably right that the scholarships could be taxed, unless they were made tax exempt (which, by the way, isn't the case for a lot of scholarships).
My thought is that players should get stipends, so they at least have some spending money (I've heard of too many cases where kids don't have time to get a part-time job because of classes and football, and their parents/guardians can't afford to send them spending money, so they end up in tough straits).
Just my 2 cents.
October 7th, 2015 at 9:22 PM ^
October 7th, 2015 at 9:25 PM ^
I see his point. It is not just as easy as paying the players. There are other factors that need to be considered. However, I would rather talk Football...
October 8th, 2015 at 3:58 AM ^
I see his point too. Therefore he should not be paid either because he has the "burden" of paying taxes on his salary. Makes sense. Coach is a genius in all things. I know because you all insist it's true.
October 8th, 2015 at 9:25 AM ^
100%
October 7th, 2015 at 9:26 PM ^
Not workable.
The NFL has an owners association and is only 32 teams. All private corporations.
How are you going to deal with 120+ teams, that have 5 major conferences and some are private some state run covering 50 states?
That's like saying the county of Huron can join with Kent County and Wayne County and have collective teacher agreements. Logistically, Michigan has nothing to do with Alabama and the players can't collectively bargin together - they are not the same league or state.
Would Alabama players go on strike and trash a season? The rest of the 119 teams wouldn't care. So really the players have no leverage against the NCAA as a whole.
Not even mentioning Title IX issues.
October 7th, 2015 at 10:32 PM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 6:03 AM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 6:23 PM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 6:58 PM ^
Again with the totally bizarre and wildly incorrect claims. NFL teams got $226 million in revenue sharing from the NFL last year, which is more revenue than any athletic department (let alone football teams by themselves) in the country, and that's just revenue sharing and doesn't count ticket sales and other locally-generated revenue. Which in Green Bay's case is another $149 million.
Stop making shit up. Here's my link, where's yours?
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13290743/green-bay-packers-financial-…
October 9th, 2015 at 9:28 AM ^
I'm not saying they'll find replacements, just guys who are on the team who work their asses off every week and have a chance to start because the starter wants to sell his likeness or whatever. Most people on a football team don't play and they don't go to the NFL. They get degrees and they move on with their lives. The chance to start is something they would jump at if some starters were unwilling to play.
The fans? Who cares who starts if the choice is no game or the second string?
Also, it would be tremendously selfish of players to commit to a school for a scholarship and then bitch about the terms and strike. If you don't like the terms, don't commit. There are many people who will take the that deal and will play. The team won't be as good, but that's really not the goal for the school here. They are on tv, regardless of who is on the field. They will have fans regardless of who is the coach or the players. Sure the fans will be happier if the school brings in 5-star recruits, but they'll still watch if they bring in 3-stars. And the school is never going to have trouble finding people will want to go to school, for just a scholarship, if they can get a college degree.
October 8th, 2015 at 4:21 AM ^
Born yesterday in AA, yeah, it's "not workable," but if you stood to gain a million dollars if a players union was implimented you would've just written a post filled with logical and workable solutions a hundred pages long.
October 7th, 2015 at 9:26 PM ^
As a reminder, please tread lightly in these threads - it's perfectly fine to post a thread about Harbaugh expressing an opinion, but could we please:
- not engage in sidebars on the merits of being a represented employee. We do have a few on the site, you know, and besmirching their affiliations and / or trades is counterproductive.
- not speculate on political affiliations of the coaches - that string was deleted as well.
- in general, try not to get political on this issue
October 7th, 2015 at 9:40 PM ^
October 7th, 2015 at 10:06 PM ^
I see this getting ugly with no way to contain the discussion honoring your guidelines. Maybe better to pull the plug now.
October 8th, 2015 at 4:39 AM ^
Telling us not to get political IS political! Telling us to not discuss political issues as if they are political, is political.
If it were literally chattel slaves playing football, and they were not even provided pads or helmets, and not provided medical attention or care, would you really advocate discussing the games only and not the political context and circumstances they existed in? Even when the subject comes up, as it did in this case with Harbaugh's statement?
Whether you would or not, you certainly won't admit that you would because you realize the absurdity such a position would be and how inhuman and inhumane it would be and would appear to be. You'd recognize that not discussing it helps allow and enable the injustice to continue.
But this is the same issue and the same concepts, just to lesser degrees. Encouraging, or insisting that injustices not be discussed, just enjoy the entertainment regardless of how the entertainers are treated, is a support of those injustices in fact and in results whether you realize or not or whether you want to admit it or not. Extremely desctructive to society and the players you claim to love.
October 9th, 2015 at 6:38 PM ^
At what point can MGoBlog just treat the "pay players" topic as politics? Everyone has their stance, they are unwilling to budge, they think opposers of that stance are wrong and ignorant, and discussion only leads to uncivilized jabs. Sounds like politicz to me.
October 7th, 2015 at 9:39 PM ^
I think this wouldn't happen. Grad students, especially in science for example (like I was) get paid stipends, and also get their tuitions covered. Stipends are taxable, but tuition is not. No reason football players can't get a similar arrangement.
October 7th, 2015 at 9:40 PM ^
He's wrong on tuition being taxed as a benefit, the IRS decided not to do that a long time ago, but stipends did become taxable under Reagan, irrespective of being considered an employee. I was a TA at UM at the time and it took a bite out of meager compensation.
October 7th, 2015 at 9:48 PM ^
Same thing when I was a grad student. It sucks getting paid $15,000/year and having to pay taxes on it.
I got to the point every few months where I had literally $50 in my bank account. I once walked 7 miles home from work, just to avoid paying the $1.10 bus fare.
October 7th, 2015 at 9:55 PM ^
I think I got less than $800 per month for a full TA appointment. Very difficult to get by on that.
October 7th, 2015 at 10:40 PM ^
October 7th, 2015 at 11:07 PM ^
Uh, where do you get that $600,000 as the average value that football players bring in? For an 85-scholarship team that's $51,000,000, which not even half of FBS athletic departments have in total revenue.
Also, in what world does any entity pay someone the full exact value they bring to the entity? If that happened every company in the world would make zero profit.
October 8th, 2015 at 5:01 AM ^
"Also, in what world does any entity pay someone the full exact value they bring to the entity? If that happened every company in the world would make zero profit."
OMFG the horror!!! No profit! Whatever would we do? How could we possibly survive with no kings or queens that can corrupt any system with wealth accumulated by not paying people the value they are worth!!!
How on earth could we survive with equality and justice for all? I can't see it!
How would we live without a profit motive? I mean the end of wars, the end of poverty or hunger, the end of profit based industry pollution and use of poisons in products and processes causing mass disease, illness and injury, & the 7th great extinction, the end of motives to limit and truncate health care, education, arts, sciences, critical thinking, information, truth, etc. etc. etc.
OMFG how could we possibly survive utopia??? The unanswerable eternal problem.
October 7th, 2015 at 11:29 PM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 8:59 AM ^
If you can't turn your value into real dollars, is it really "value"?
October 7th, 2015 at 9:52 PM ^
October 7th, 2015 at 10:02 PM ^
Um, no. "Irrespective" means "without regard to." "Irregardless" is an informal or nonstandard form of regardless.
October 7th, 2015 at 10:32 PM ^
October 7th, 2015 at 9:54 PM ^
October 7th, 2015 at 10:05 PM ^
No. Grad students are employees at some institutions. And as another poster mentioned, tuition waivers or scholarships are often given as employment benefits. The IRS did consider this a long time ago and decided they are not taxable.
October 7th, 2015 at 9:45 PM ^
I have a PhD in physics. While in grad school, I had an assistantship (either a teaching assistantship or a research assistantship). This gave me a few things:
- Tuition waiver (scholarship). Basically the department paid everything except for about $30 of fees/semester. Note: when the department is footing the bill, they get charged out of state tuition.
- Health Insurance. It was crappy, and I had to go to the campus "health center". But it was better than no insurance or a crazy high deductable plan that I could purchase on the open market.
- A stipend (~$15k/year).
I only paid taxes on the stipend. You don't have to pay taxes on benefits.
Think, also, about this scenario. Suppose your office has an employee gym, which you are allowed to visit as a perk. You don't have to add the cost of a gym membership to your income even though access to a gym was provided to you as an employment benefit. Or suppose your boss takes everyone on a retreat to some cool vacation spot and foots the bill. You don't have to add in the cost of that trip as income.
One last example, health insurance. When your employer pays your health insurance as an employment benefit, you don't have to declare it as income. When you fall and cut your head (because you should have quit drinking and gone to bed...) and have to go to the hospital and get stitches and get stuck with a big hospital bill, your insurance pays it and you don't have to include their payments as taxable income.
tl, dr; A scholarship is not income. And the tax code makes my freaking head hurt. Give me Maxwell's equations any day of the week instead of that nightmare.
October 7th, 2015 at 9:53 PM ^
October 9th, 2015 at 7:26 PM ^
They're both shit.
October 7th, 2015 at 9:54 PM ^
Can confirm all of this
October 7th, 2015 at 10:54 PM ^
I have a MS in Engineering - I win Sheldon
October 7th, 2015 at 9:59 PM ^
October 8th, 2015 at 4:22 PM ^
Like most solutions, this tends to make sense if everyone operates in good faith. But this seems to be easily compromised. Couldn't you pay a recruit $10k to use his/her "likeness" on some Michigan t-shirts? Or handsomely overpay them to do a local car dealership commercial? Something like that?
Any solution I've read seems to turn into an all out free-for-all when you imagine how a shady booster would interpret the new rule.
October 7th, 2015 at 10:10 PM ^