Dellenger: House committee votes to approve college athletics bill aiming to avoid athlete employment

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
23,711
Reaction score
7,631
Points
113
House republicans join forces with college administrators and Jason Stahl. Now I’ve seen everything.



On one side of the debate are mostly Republican lawmakers, college administrators and many college athletes themselves who do not support employment. On the other: Democrats, leaders of player advocacy groups and, of course, unions themselves, as well as some players.

But as conversations have persisted over the last several months, even some Democrats have privately and publicly acknowledged the complications in athlete employment. Advocacy group leaders, like Jason Stahl of the College Football Players Association and Jim Cavale of Athletes.org and Pompous Elitist of influential Gopherhole.com (Edit: that last part was made up) have expressed support for a non-employment collective bargaining model. And many athletes have lobbied against employment, several of them even testifying before Congress.

College leaders are resistant to an employment model for a variety of reasons.

For one, they say that such a model would result in the elimination of sports teams as schools financially work to pay player salaries and other benefits, especially to groups of athletes whose sports lose millions annually. Speaking before lawmakers in March, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips suggested that some schools could “go from 28 to six sports in one fiscal year.”

Most athletic departments, even at the highest levels, turn a profit in only two sports: football and men’s basketball. Schools use those funds to subsidize the rest of the athletic teams. Lower-resourced athletic departments, such as those at the Group of Five and FCS, often generate little to no profit in any sport and need university and state funding to stay afloat.

In a recent letter sent to lawmakers, athletes from the MAC voiced their opposition to an employment model. Last year, leaders of the NCAA’s historically black colleges — many of whom are struggling financially — penned a letter to lawmakers suggesting a shuttering of entire athletic departments if employment happened.
 

It would mean the end of most college athletics. If there is a paid portion of the athletic department, why have athletic scholarships for the rest?

I love sports and have heard from many non sports folks that say why should we give scholarships to athletes? The answer was always easy, because overall sports make money. The big sports support the smaller ones.

Well, I guess not anymore. There is no no reason to financially support non-revenue sports. The idiots that lovef this pay the players/NIL world destroyed the college model and replaced it with a boring minor league system.
 

The good news for non-revenue sports is that there is a lot of good people out there who will work and donate money to give kids a chance at an education and the chance to be part of a team.

As much as some on this board hate it, there are more supporters of that ideal than paying money to buy a college football player so you can attend the private spring game and get a paid turn sniffing one of the players jock straps.
 

The good news for non-revenue sports is that there is a lot of good people out there who will work and donate money to give kids a chance at an education and the chance to be part of a team.

As much as some on this board hate it, there are more supporters of that ideal than paying money to buy a college football player so you can attend the private spring game and get a paid turn sniffing one of the players jock straps.


Hard to predict, I think. Some programs have or can raise the money while others probably can’t. There’s a lot of meat on the bone at many athletic departments, so to speak. That said, just today we have administrators seriously considering selling away their future revenue streams for a temporary bump rather than completing the five steps of grief and making hard budget decisions. I mean…that’s one way to go.
 

Never understood why colleges had so many sports. It probably had something to do with the big schools that made money from sports had to do something with the money generated from football/basketball, and athletic and school administrators had egos to driver more sports.The smaller schools felt they needed to compete so created money losing sports. Why not just make “most” sports club teams? That may be one outcome of the shakeout. Not to pick on any one sport but why not just have golf, tennis, baseball etc club teams that play local schools UofM, St Thomas, St Cloud, Mankato and then only have two major sports for men and women. Not saying the path to that would be easy but it could be a possible outcome.
 
Last edited:


Nothing is going to pass Congress the rest of this year - or at least not until after the election.

no surprise - the Republicans and Democrats are on opposite sides of the college athlete issue. take the existing gridlock, add election year concerns, and the result is nothing other than the most basic "keep the lights on" type of legislation has a prayer of being approved this year.

after that, depends on outcome of election. if we come out of November with divided gov't, gridlock continues. if one party somehow manages to gain control of the Presidency, House and Senate, then there is a better chance of legislation getting through.

if the Dems are the controlling party, they are more likely to support athletes as employees with collective bargaining, etc. the Republicans would be more likely to oppose employee status.
 


That is all we need. Grid-lock in college sports.
 

House republicans join forces with college administrators and Jason Stahl. Now I’ve seen everything.



On one side of the debate are mostly Republican lawmakers, college administrators and many college athletes themselves who do not support employment. On the other: Democrats, leaders of player advocacy groups and, of course, unions themselves, as well as some players.

But as conversations have persisted over the last several months, even some Democrats have privately and publicly acknowledged the complications in athlete employment. Advocacy group leaders, like Jason Stahl of the College Football Players Association and Jim Cavale of Athletes.org and Pompous Elitist of influential Gopherhole.com (Edit: that last part was made up) have expressed support for a non-employment collective bargaining model. And many athletes have lobbied against employment, several of them even testifying before Congress.

College leaders are resistant to an employment model for a variety of reasons.

For one, they say that such a model would result in the elimination of sports teams as schools financially work to pay player salaries and other benefits, especially to groups of athletes whose sports lose millions annually. Speaking before lawmakers in March, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips suggested that some schools could “go from 28 to six sports in one fiscal year.”

Most athletic departments, even at the highest levels, turn a profit in only two sports: football and men’s basketball. Schools use those funds to subsidize the rest of the athletic teams. Lower-resourced athletic departments, such as those at the Group of Five and FCS, often generate little to no profit in any sport and need university and state funding to stay afloat.

In a recent letter sent to lawmakers, athletes from the MAC voiced their opposition to an employment model. Last year, leaders of the NCAA’s historically black colleges — many of whom are struggling financially — penned a letter to lawmakers suggesting a shuttering of entire athletic departments if employment happened.


I like this.

It addresses the worst scenario, employment. Do it. This is a student experience. Employment is a financial disaster. We the taxpayers paid for those public school facilities for the student experience.

The bill leaves the rest alone. Anytime you do more you risk making it worse. Let the process unfold awhile and then maybe later do more.

The money part is a big factor and being addressed in NIL. Not perfect but that is labor economics at work.
 



Nothing is going to pass Congress the rest of this year - or at least not until after the election.

no surprise - the Republicans and Democrats are on opposite sides of the college athlete issue. take the existing gridlock, add election year concerns, and the result is nothing other than the most basic "keep the lights on" type of legislation has a prayer of being approved this year.

after that, depends on outcome of election. if we come out of November with divided gov't, gridlock continues. if one party somehow manages to gain control of the Presidency, House and Senate, then there is a better chance of legislation getting through.

if the Dems are the controlling party, they are more likely to support athletes as employees with collective bargaining, etc. the Republicans would be more likely to oppose employee status.

virtually unreadable
 

Athletic departments aren’t the only ones that have gotten fat and don’t want the party to end. “What starts out as a movement ends up a racket, cult, or corporation”



Last week, NCAA president Charlie Baker was in town, too, along with several former and current college athletes — all of them lobbying lawmakers to prohibit athlete employment as well as grant the NCAA protection to enforce its rules by codifying the organization's recent landmark settlement.

…College administrators aren’t the only ones lobbying Congress. Sandwiched
between visits from Baker last week and conference commissioners this week were visits to the Capitol from The Collective Association, a group of leaders of school-affiliated booster collectives who themselves have mounted a lobbying effort opposing that of the NCAA. They are encouraging lawmakers to keep out of college sports.
 






Government is interested in more employees so the government can collect more taxes so more money for their pet projects.

NIL payments received are taxable income for income taxes and considered self-employment income for purposes of social security/Medicare taxes. Room and board payments to athletes have been taxable income to athletes for as long as I can remember. The cost of the athlete's tuition is considered a non-taxable scholarship in most cases.

I don't see much changing if they are treated as employees except half of their social security/Medicare taxes would be paid by their employers.
 




Top Bottom