That's pretty much the way the real world works. My employer charges their customer roughly 4-5 times what they pay me per hour. The difference goes to pay for facilities, utilities, overhead employees, etc. The football player who is getting a $50k scholarship and generating $300k to $3 million is paying for the same things except instead of overhead employees there are scholarship athletes for non revenue sports.
Hooray! "Amateurism" Takes a Blow
- Thread starter Gopherguy0723
- Start date
RailBaronYarr
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,285
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Actually, yes. If MJ agrees to let a non-profit use his image to raise money and not get a cut of it, then yes, they do. The students DO know what they're getting in to by signing the agreement. They DO have an option to go and pay trainers to train them, agents to give them exposure, or play in other leagues. The NFL absolutely should set up their own minor league, or someone should do it for them. The NCAA execs should absolutely be paid far less than they are given their org's non-profit status. But the fact that we're weeping for athletes who are receiving free education, training, and even exposure for a potential future career in sports. All the while any profits their skills bring in go toward subsidizing other athletes who simply happen to be skilled at a sport that doesn't draw paying crowds, which is a good thing. Are we weeping for cheerleaders or the marching band? Why not? This isn't a job. The NCAA and colleges aren't for-profit organizations. That they hire ADs and marketing depts to bring in as much exposure and money as possible simply reflects the skills required to do so. Yes, there are problems with the level of pay, but I honestly fail to see how an organization that isn't limiting other for-pay leagues from starting or activiely limiting potential athletes' options "owes" anyone anything.
If pay-for-play ensues, I hope to heaven that the NCAA changes rules on how players enter their system. Right now things are kept "fair" by limiting number of scholarships and no pay - students choose the school based on coaching staff, school quality, etc. In a future where a HS athlete can be paid by rich alumni/boosters to attend a school, it's even more have vs. have-nots. We'd need a draft to ensure lower level teams have a chance at any athlete.
FanSinceTheFifties
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,235
- Reaction score
- 424
- Points
- 83
I like that idea. I don't want college sports to be minor league professional. It would be fine with me if the kids who come for one year and leave for the NBA or NFL didn't bother to play college ball at all. With student academic standards for athletes, at least we'd have kids in college who could be students if they wanted to be. College football is college football, not football played at a college. I'm pretty sure I'll lose on this one so I have already started to follow D2 football which is more like what D1 used to be like.
Gopherguy0723
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,477
- Reaction score
- 542
- Points
- 113
Exactly right. If boosters and car dealers are offering up cash and cars for services, that clearly shows players are not getting fair market value. If people are voluntarily giving money, I would bet players could get exponentially more by negotiating.
Spare us your faux market rant.
Iceland12
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 24,612
- Reaction score
- 2,349
- Points
- 113
Please, boosters, car dealer and agents would be "offering-up" cash, cars and whatever whether the players were getting paid or not.
Gopherguy0723
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,477
- Reaction score
- 542
- Points
- 113
Because there is a market for their services. People will clearly pay above and beyond what the schools are offering for entertainment for school pride or whatever. A market for their services still exists. Isn't that much obvious?
Iceland12
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 24,612
- Reaction score
- 2,349
- Points
- 113
That's not what you said. You said that they were getting those "incentives" because the players in college weren't "getting fair market value". The pros in the NFL, NBA and MLB are also getting cash, cars and whatever from boosters, car dealers, agents, pimps whomever. Very few of the players in the pros are underpaid.
You've made some good points, no reason to start getting ridiculous.
Bob, your confused on the tax issue. The code exemption is because they are considered as not being compensated for services. Change that and you have a tax issue. Granted a new exclusion could be made, but it must be addressed; which would have to pass through congress. Other students currently receiving scholarships can be still considered as receiving them for research or study under current rules.
Reggie Bush was paid by an agent for prospecting future business considerations. That is not an example of the market paying more. However, I will grant you that there is something to your point. I know there are examples that fit your gist, for instance OK State (recent sports illustrated article, Adrian Foster). That is fine and dandy for those kids. They are the rare exceptions. Some 20,000 kids play football at FBS and FCS schools each year, add BBall players, which are more profitable and you approach 25k athletes. There isn’t money to give these kids anything close to minimum wages currently in the system. So you have to find some way to get that money into the College/university system so they can payout the salaries (assuming no cap system).
I was not making a market argument for the NCAA; instead just speculating on some aspects of a pay for play system. There would likely be some better paying teams and the rest would get away with paying virtually nothing.
Consider this thought experiment (we’ll limit it to football): Paying for players requires a rise in costs at all football programs. One can't raise the costs of all these schools and expect the same number of teams. There are tons that don't currently make it without support. However, the supply of those able to play (players) does not drop. Additionally, you will have big schools that need games each year, games where they need to stomp opponents. Otherwise, those tons of people voluntarily paying at LSU, Texas, Auburn, etc, etc don't continue to pay without winners. Remember you need the volunteers to keep the golden egg flowing.
So there will be room for some junk teams, how many is hard to speculate. They will make revenue by squeezing the big schools for a larger slice, big schools loose negotiating power because the supply of opponents to crush has dropped, so they hike up their payouts to said a school, which further dampens profitability and the budget for good players.
The junk teams would be in a situation where players are fungible goods, Literally commodities, because as we noted earlier there are more players competing for less spots. This drives down labor costs, which theoretically would be lower than current. Why? Because a school would no longer need to offer a full ride. Of course, I doubt that would be common, but some will inevitably earn less for the shot at the NFL. That currently does happen in baseball and Hockey leagues.
The so called Junk teams at the beginning will be much more profitable. Since there are barriers to entry (substantial market entry costs)it will likely take several decades before profitability in that area reaches it’s long term target.
Your splitting hairs; the gist of the example is employees are expected to generate a return in exchange for their salary. It addresses a specific point of the posters claim, regarding how players would not play if they knew revenue they generated was more than their benefit. The poster later retracted, saying he just wrote his point wrong and clarified.
I do like the possibility of compromise though on allowing athletes to put consideration in trust. There could be something to that.
Which court ruling? The only one I can find regards EA sports use of the first amendment as a defense. Does not address NCAA, nor whether privity extends that far.
This would be a decent post, if you noticed the example used is not for playing college football, but instead for future business considerations. In effect its a sales incentive. Car dealers are another poor example, they want advertising, everything I wrote about is concerning markets for paying players in college football. If you're going to lob insults in an argument, make certain you address the points specifically, otherwise, it misses the mark and simply reflects on you.
However, boosters paying money does work as an example. That means there is money available. How much? Hopefully a ton to turn the paltry $4k into something meaningful. Additionally, Imagine how this would have to be structured in terms of ticket price increases to funnel that money through to players. The increases are downright staggering. Think 10 home games and you have a 100 players to pay and staff for the front office workload the new system dictates.
I wonder if the boosters care as much, when the illegality is gone? Usually, when black markets (because that is what you are implying) are lifted, prices drop considerably.
hyaluronic
Custom User Title
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 2,953
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 36
I really like this thread - a great exchange of ideas.
There are certainly two sides and many shades of gray to the issue. Ultimately, it comes down to a perception that players are not being paid their value. In reality, it is probably a select few players who are not being paid their value. These athletes do utilize a system paid for by the NCAA and its member institutions to gain the value that eventually would allow them to monetize it. So, I think it is fair when someone says, "hey, that's part of the deal when you work for somebody else." The public perception problem comes into play because the NCAA has a near monopoly on the high school football talent in the country. There needs to be a visible, and hopefully viable, alternative to developing your skills in the NCAA. At this point, I feel other posters have made clear some possibilities that can be explored in that regard.
Assuming the "visible and viable alternative" comes to fruition, the NCAA needs to enforce their policies with an iron fist. You are a student athlete, and there should be across the board NCAA standards for academics. If you get caught up in pay for play, you're out of the league. If your school is involved, they cannot receive a slap on the wrist. Defend amateurism, defend the student in student athlete.
Some have stated or implied that the players have been getting ripped off for years, or decades. I do not think that is the case. Most have not, and most are not. There are some whose market value well exceeds what the NCAA pays in terms of benefits. However, the revenue streams have not always been this heavy, and so I do not think before a strong case could be made for athletes historically. Now you are seeing cases where athletes are literally bringing in tens and hundreds of millions of dollars to their respective schools, and the NCAA is saying, "hey, you have a $30k scholarship!" Yes you could have made hypothetical arguments in the past about the system's intrinsic unfairness, but now we are seeing it become a reality. And with no strong alternatives for such players to consider, it leaves the NCAA in a position that is tough to defend.
In summary, I think everyone has a valid point. Continue on, it has been an interesting read.
There are certainly two sides and many shades of gray to the issue. Ultimately, it comes down to a perception that players are not being paid their value. In reality, it is probably a select few players who are not being paid their value. These athletes do utilize a system paid for by the NCAA and its member institutions to gain the value that eventually would allow them to monetize it. So, I think it is fair when someone says, "hey, that's part of the deal when you work for somebody else." The public perception problem comes into play because the NCAA has a near monopoly on the high school football talent in the country. There needs to be a visible, and hopefully viable, alternative to developing your skills in the NCAA. At this point, I feel other posters have made clear some possibilities that can be explored in that regard.
Assuming the "visible and viable alternative" comes to fruition, the NCAA needs to enforce their policies with an iron fist. You are a student athlete, and there should be across the board NCAA standards for academics. If you get caught up in pay for play, you're out of the league. If your school is involved, they cannot receive a slap on the wrist. Defend amateurism, defend the student in student athlete.
Some have stated or implied that the players have been getting ripped off for years, or decades. I do not think that is the case. Most have not, and most are not. There are some whose market value well exceeds what the NCAA pays in terms of benefits. However, the revenue streams have not always been this heavy, and so I do not think before a strong case could be made for athletes historically. Now you are seeing cases where athletes are literally bringing in tens and hundreds of millions of dollars to their respective schools, and the NCAA is saying, "hey, you have a $30k scholarship!" Yes you could have made hypothetical arguments in the past about the system's intrinsic unfairness, but now we are seeing it become a reality. And with no strong alternatives for such players to consider, it leaves the NCAA in a position that is tough to defend.
In summary, I think everyone has a valid point. Continue on, it has been an interesting read.
I'm not talking about the courts. I'm talking about the governing body of athletics and its rules in regards to payment. If you're arguing that the federal court system should be the governing body for the stipends for athletes, then I can see your point. But that wasn't what I was referring to.
Schools: Here is your tender agreement that outlines what you receive and outlines also that you give to us all the rights to use your likeness, et al as we see fit. We would love to have you sign here, but if those terms and the lifestyle of being a NCAA football player doesn't work for you then good luck. Player: Where do I sign? Done deal and then the only issue is the past and not the future. "Power to the People" (Players)
Mick Turition
Piss 'On Wisconsin'
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,108
- Reaction score
- 120
- Points
- 63
random toughts and questions
EA Sports voluntarily settled their part of the lawsuit, the NCAA did not settle and will most likely keep going all the way to the Supreme Court. EA Sports will pay out roughly the equivalent of $160 per player ($40,000,000 divided by 250,000 players), that is if the lawyers don't get a major chunk of that settlement which they almost certainly will.
Is there any age restriction on players entering ArenaLeague/Canadian League/USFL? I don't know but I doubt if there is. The NFL abandoned it's attempt at a minor league system (European League) a few years ago and then promptly instituted the 'two years removed from high school' eligibility rule, tacitly endorsing college football as their minor league system. And there were no howls of righteous indignation from a major conference administrator when that went into affect. Ditto for NBA ruling on 'one year removed from high school' eligibility rule.
If you are going to pay college players do all players get paid the same? Do they sign for an agreed upon amount for the entire five years upon entry into school? What happens when the four star recruit turns out to be a bust? Is he fired or does his pay get docked or does he lose his pay but not the scholarship or both? What happens to the unheralded kid who signs for the minimum and three years later turns into a major star? Can he hold out for more cash? Can he transfer to another school that offers more money? Do they get paid with game checks and therefore can collect money during fall semester only?
Does the third string safety at Syracuse get paid the same as Clowney or Manziel?
Can the basketball/hockey teams pay a big money bonus to just one star high school player to get him to come to their school instead of signing with a minor league for a big bonus?
As stated by Hyaluronic it really seems to be a select few players that 'outplay' their scholarship (~$250,000 for full ride). Those select few will never be happy being paid the same as the rest of the players.
If they can market themselves can they hire agents? Can they be docked money for missing practice/class if they are at a for-profit photo shoot? Do they have to attend pre-season conference meetings where coaches usually bring 2-3 of their star players; and if so do they get paid for being there as they obviously would not be there if they were not the best players? Does the coach have to negotiate with them on payment before leaving for the meeting? Can they refuse to attend ANY non-scheduled team practice/meetings if it interferes with their outside business interests?
Young players may find it hard to stand up to coaches but agents will not have a problem doing that for them. Once you pay players coaches lose a lot of authority, for better or worse.
There will obviously be moves to form a college football player union, probably an offshoot the NFL players union. What ramifications does this bring?
EA Sports voluntarily settled their part of the lawsuit, the NCAA did not settle and will most likely keep going all the way to the Supreme Court. EA Sports will pay out roughly the equivalent of $160 per player ($40,000,000 divided by 250,000 players), that is if the lawyers don't get a major chunk of that settlement which they almost certainly will.
Is there any age restriction on players entering ArenaLeague/Canadian League/USFL? I don't know but I doubt if there is. The NFL abandoned it's attempt at a minor league system (European League) a few years ago and then promptly instituted the 'two years removed from high school' eligibility rule, tacitly endorsing college football as their minor league system. And there were no howls of righteous indignation from a major conference administrator when that went into affect. Ditto for NBA ruling on 'one year removed from high school' eligibility rule.
If you are going to pay college players do all players get paid the same? Do they sign for an agreed upon amount for the entire five years upon entry into school? What happens when the four star recruit turns out to be a bust? Is he fired or does his pay get docked or does he lose his pay but not the scholarship or both? What happens to the unheralded kid who signs for the minimum and three years later turns into a major star? Can he hold out for more cash? Can he transfer to another school that offers more money? Do they get paid with game checks and therefore can collect money during fall semester only?
Does the third string safety at Syracuse get paid the same as Clowney or Manziel?
Can the basketball/hockey teams pay a big money bonus to just one star high school player to get him to come to their school instead of signing with a minor league for a big bonus?
As stated by Hyaluronic it really seems to be a select few players that 'outplay' their scholarship (~$250,000 for full ride). Those select few will never be happy being paid the same as the rest of the players.
If they can market themselves can they hire agents? Can they be docked money for missing practice/class if they are at a for-profit photo shoot? Do they have to attend pre-season conference meetings where coaches usually bring 2-3 of their star players; and if so do they get paid for being there as they obviously would not be there if they were not the best players? Does the coach have to negotiate with them on payment before leaving for the meeting? Can they refuse to attend ANY non-scheduled team practice/meetings if it interferes with their outside business interests?
Young players may find it hard to stand up to coaches but agents will not have a problem doing that for them. Once you pay players coaches lose a lot of authority, for better or worse.
There will obviously be moves to form a college football player union, probably an offshoot the NFL players union. What ramifications does this bring?