Northwestern Players Want a Union

Donate To GopherHole
atsgopher said:
Sure it does. The return on investment is not very large. The real benefit from ownership is prestige.

Without subsidization it would be smaller (ROI) and given it's a capital intensive business the people that can afford to put on football games just wouldn't. There are far better ways to spend their money that would make them a boatload.

Below are the 2013 NFL numbers: Source Forbes.

Since we are discussing profitability we must use numbers designed to gauge that, thus NFL figures are used via analogy. Note that these numbers include the subsidies.

Basically, one could do better without even trying. Why tie up billions when you can barely beat the risk free rate of return? If you took away the subsidies these businesses would clearly lose money. They need governments to finance these paltry returns.

College football is even more skewed and need subsidies even more.

Consider that their revenue and profit figures include donations. Guess what wouldn't be included when college players get paid. Revenue is not equal in not for profit accounting with revenue in the for profit world.

This is not a good business. The money isn't there. ESPN doesn't count. You have to buy shares in Disney (DIS) to rake in that dough.

College Basketball makes money, but as the NBA proves... this is because of the model. For all you ****house lawyers that means the business model is a necessary condition.

If you change it you lose it. You also loose the segway into millions of dollars for a ton of kids. Make no mistake if you change college sports, the on field product in NBA and NFL will suffer greatly. There will be massive damage to the quality of play and these businesses will get worse.
Click to expand...
You're making a lot of ridiculous assumptions about the behavior of the owners if they didn't get government subsidies to build stadiums. The salaries they pay the players is entirely dependent upon the revenue they bring in. You were right that NFL ownership has a lot to do with prestige. Most owners treat their team like their yacht club. They don't run them like fortune 500 publicly traded companies. There is so much profit to be made, but they're primarily greedy about winning.

atsgopher said:
College football is even more skewed and need subsidies even more
Click to expand...
except the Gophers make $15 Million in profit on $36 Million in Revenue. Calculate the ROR on that.
 

Women's Basketball will never be revenue positive until Pam Borton is gone.
 


I would be curious on what college pays for them now broken down. Obviously, tuition/housing is a biggie. But, what about the other "stuff".

Say they give up, throw their hands in the air and say "FINE!. Here you go Mr. Gopher football player, we are going to pay you $75,000 a year". Obviously, when this starts, housing and tuition goes out the window

I'm curious how much the player would need to make to simply pay for what they are receiving for free today. Never being a college athlete on scholarship, I'm assuming they receive room and travel and other goodies along the way. That bill adds up per person. Would be interesting to see what the average football players "costs" the university.

Before anyone says it, ya, there is always a flip side to the coin. How much does university make on a student...
 

station19 said:
I think we should bring back Maturi to make one more hire.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ya, Joel called me to see if I was interested in a one-year interim contract while Woody finds a real coach. I turned him down because I have too much experience in the field of Proctology.
 


YouBaxter said:
I would be curious on what college pays for them now broken down. Obviously, tuition/housing is a biggie. But, what about the other "stuff".

Say they give up, throw their hands in the air and say "FINE!. Here you go Mr. Gopher football player, we are going to pay you $75,000 a year". Obviously, when this starts, housing and tuition goes out the window

I'm curious how much the player would need to make to simply pay for what they are receiving for free today. Never being a college athlete on scholarship, I'm assuming they receive room and travel and other goodies along the way. That bill adds up per person. Would be interesting to see what the average football players "costs" the university.

Before anyone says it, ya, there is always a flip side to the coin. How much does university make on a student...
Click to expand...

A bigger concern for me is how many players will take the $75,000 check, blow it all the instant they receive it, and then be left not able to pay their tuition and rent.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
A bigger concern for me is how many players will take the $75,000 check, blow it all the instant they receive it, and then be left not able to pay their tuition and rent.
Click to expand...

Jewhan Edwards' business would be exponentially growing.
 

To me it seems like an easy fix: Document in the LOI and/or grant in aid agreement what they get down to the penny. Outline specifically tuition, room and board, books, however medical care works and then perhaps add a stipend of say $2,500 a semester to increase yearly by the CPI and whatever else I may have overlooked. Also include language in the agreement that that in return for this, the student athlete gives up any and all claims for other benefits above and beyond both while in school and at any time in the future. If a kid doesn't want to sign, then he can take his ball and go home. This doesn't take care of malcontents like Colter, et al who are already on campus, but going forward once the new documents are put in place it deals with all kids into the future.
 

Indi1006 said:
To me it seems like an easy fix: Document in the LOI and/or grant in aid agreement what they get down to the penny. Outline specifically tuition, room and board, books, however medical care works and then perhaps add a stipend of say $2,500 a semester to increase yearly by the CPI and whatever else I may have overlooked. Also include language in the agreement that that in return for this, the student athlete gives up any and all claims for other benefits above and beyond both while in school and at any time in the future. If a kid doesn't want to sign, then he can take his ball and go home. This doesn't take care of malcontents like Colter, et al who are already on campus, but going forward once the new documents are put in place it deals with all kids into the future.
Click to expand...

Could we also add; if the player doesn't make at least one all-conference team before he graduates he must give up his first born child?
 



SI on Title 9 and Union Representation:

One difference is that O’Bannon is seeking money for student-athletes’ image and likenesses. This unionization is really a total attempt to become employees, to negotiate labor rights. So it’s different, but they’re seeking the same overall goal.

SI: One issue that always comes up in these situations is the effect of Title IX. How might Title IX impact a player’s efforts to unionize?

MM: Let’s say football players and men’s basketball players unionize, and they seek compensation for their labor. Title IX, as we know, demands gender equity in college sports. We could see Title IX lawsuits brought against unionization because of the impact it would have on women’s sports. The counterargument is that women’s athletes could unionize, as well, and that’s true. But the reality is male athletes would likely command a lot more money as a union than female athletes would. I think Title IX is a potential issue because the unionized male athletes are going to command money that would seem to tip the balance of gender equity in favor of men.

SI: Northwestern is a private university. Would the process be any different if players at a public university sought to unionize?

MM: The National Labor Relations Act, which the Northwestern players are using, does not govern employees at public universities. Student-athletes at public universities who want to join Northwestern in the union effort would have to instead use state labor laws to unionize. This will be a problem for some. States’ laws vary considerably on whether, and how easily, public employees can unionize. Twenty-four of the 50 states are considered “right-to-work” states in that their laws limit opportunities for employees of public institutions, including those employed by state universities, to unionize. Right-to-work states are typically in the south and include Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Nebraska, Utah and Iowa are also right-to-work states.

This legal twist means that if college athletes want to be in a union, they need to attend schools where unions not only exist but are possible under the law. In theory, this dynamic could disadvantage public universities in right-to-work states while recruiting high school athletes: If those athletes want to be in a college sports union, they may not be able to do so at public universities in right-to-work states.

http://college-football.si.com/2014/01/28/northwestern-football-kain-colter-labor-union/
 

station19 said:
First of all the investment(cost of franchise) goes up and up. Most will argue that a NFL franchise will not be sold for less that 1 Billion in the future. Red McCombs paid around 240 Mill for the Vikes and put absolutely nothing in and sold them for 660(?) Mill.

The average NFL player is paid over 2 MIll per year. Drop that to a little over 1 mill per year and they can pay for their own stadium. I use the players #'s because as you know we are not privy to the owners profits except GB. The NFL CAN afford to pay for their own stadiums.........just no sense doing it when cities and states will do it for them. The price of the franchise keeps going up because they have the ability to make tons of money.

THE NFL DOES NOT NEED TO BE SUBSIDIZED.
Click to expand...

First off, I've never argues for them to be subsidized. I am just stating the perceived massive profits currently being made are dependent on subsidy. They would still make money in the NFL absent such subsidies... It would take a lot longer and it would be far more risky. A situation that isn't exactly ideal for attracting capital investment.

Red McCombs roughly doubled his money in real terms (adjusted for inflation). However, the Dome was paid for and the Vikings were receiving government subsidy throughout the period. The Vikings were receiving revenue from every event in the Dome in concessions, parking, and suite revenue.

They also didn't pay rent ($4 million) per year from 2002 to 2011; it was waived by the metropolitan sports commission.

Increases in value are dependent on cash flows. The Vikings and Mr McCombs's cash flows and subsequent return were dependent on subsidies at the time and subsidies projected into the future. I'm sure one of the country's billionaires will be happy to play the next fool. Btw, I have some "postal reply coupons" I'd like you to look at.

If you cut the players salary there is more margin assuming revenue would stay the same. Since football players won't become more productive, I highly doubt major cuts to costs would support the same revenue stream. I can't think of another business where that is true, or has been true in the past, absent some major productivity revolution.

However, maybe they could cut it to $200,000 a year and then they'll make millions....
 

atsgopher said:
First off, I've never argues for them to be subsidized. I am just stating the perceived massive profits currently being made are dependent on subsidy. They would still make money in the NFL absent such subsidies... It would take a lot longer and it would be far more risky. A situation that isn't exactly ideal for attracting capital investment.

Red McCombs roughly doubled his money in real terms (adjusted for inflation). However, the Dome was paid for and the Vikings were receiving government subsidy throughout the period. The Vikings were receiving revenue from every event in the Dome in concessions, parking, and suite revenue.

They also didn't pay rent ($4 million) per year from 2002 to 2011; it was waived by the metropolitan sports commission.

Increases in value are dependent on cash flows. The Vikings and Mr McCombs's cash flows and subsequent return were dependent on subsidies at the time and subsidies projected into the future. I'm sure one of the country's billionaires will be happy to play the next fool. Btw, I have some "postal reply coupons" I'd like you to look at.

If you cut the players salary there is more margin assuming revenue would stay the same. Since football players won't become more productive, I highly doubt major cuts to costs would support the same revenue stream. I can't think of another business where that is true, or has been true in the past, absent some major productivity revolution.

However, maybe they could cut it to $200,000 a year and then they'll make millions....
Click to expand...

This statement seems to suggest the NFL would not be able to make it without subsidizes.

" For instance, take the NFL; it began as a professional league and struggled next to college football for 25 years before anybody really paid attention. it took another 25 to become mainstream and profitable league wide. It absorbed the only competition (AFL) and finally became a financial powerhouse. However, it still requires subsidization;"

The NFL could make it without those subsidizes. It would be hard to go backwards but they would do just fine. The price in the franchise fee would be lowered to reflect less profitability.
 

AO54 said:
You're making a lot of ridiculous assumptions about the behavior of the owners if they didn't get government subsidies to build stadiums. The salaries they pay the players is entirely dependent upon the revenue they bring in. You were right that NFL ownership has a lot to do with prestige. Most owners treat their team like their yacht club. They don't run them like fortune 500 publicly traded companies. There is so much profit to be made, but they're primarily greedy about winning.
Click to expand...

Your right, If Revenue drops so does salary. My calc striclty depends on cash vs cost. I never entered a fixed cost vs variable cost argument. I presented EBIT. Your criticism uses this fact and thus is dependent on itself. However, I will grant you that I suspect the business would exist in a less grandiose scale absent subsidization.

Either way, that is beside the point. The fact is this industry does not produce a margin that can take on additional costs. Especially, given the capital intensive nature and long payback periods. Casual fans see large paydays and equate that with massive amounts of capital piling up somewhere.

I am simply trying to show there isn't a ton of additional profit in football. They make a lot, but they pay a lot to do that. Returns on lower than most other businesses. the return on capital above is calculated with subsidies included.
AO54 said:
except the Gophers make $15 Million in profit on $36 Million in Revenue. Calculate the ROR on that.
Click to expand...

Oops, meant to type ROI.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. You just presented revenue and profit of a university department without consideration of the accounting involved. It is not that simple. It is not representative of a business's revenue. Revenue in that calc just means "money coming in" Which is where the subsidies are put (donations are subsidies in a practical sense).

I'll bet the U football does take in more than it spends on business related revenue. However, it is not a very large margin. They cannot support much more cost.
 



station19 said:
This statement seems to suggest the NFL would not be able to make it without subsidizes.

" For instance, take the NFL; it began as a professional league and struggled next to college football for 25 years before anybody really paid attention. it took another 25 to become mainstream and profitable league wide. It absorbed the only competition (AFL) and finally became a financial powerhouse. However, it still requires subsidization;"

The NFL could make it without those subsidizes. It would be hard to go backwards but they would do just fine. The price in the franchise fee would be lowered to reflect less profitability.
Click to expand...

Sure, see your point. I think we agree. The whole crux of this issue is players wanting more.... I'm trying to show there is not a whole lot more to give out. The NFL provides a snapshot of a for profit business that is most analogous to college football. The Margins are low, just like in college if it were converted to for profit.

I think the large dollar amounts discussed and high salaries confuse this issue as people think that robber barons are out there raking in "uncle scrooge" money; then swimming in the money bin. Meanwhile, poor little college players work in 18th century style coal mines.

It simply isn't true. They profit, just not any better than most business. The Changes called for by the op would require higher margins.
 

atsgopher said:
Oops, meant to type ROI.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. You just presented revenue and profit of a university department without consideration of the accounting involved. It is not that simple. It is not representative of a business's revenue. Revenue in that calc just means "money coming in" Which is where the subsidies are put (donations are subsidies in a practical sense).

I'll bet the U football does take in more than it spends on business related revenue. However, it is not a very large margin. They cannot support much more cost.
Click to expand...
Of course it is that simple. Donations are a small percentage of revenue and I do not agree that they vanish if the players are paid a stipend. Alums are like owners of NFL teams. They will spend money to win. Prove to me that the Gopher football didn't earn $15 Million in profit. Other business' might be able to earn a similar profit but earning $15 Million profit against only $20 costs is preposterous for the vast majorities of businesses. They get less than $10 million subsidy from the general fund for the whole athletic department and the non-revenue sports cost far more than $10 Million. The profit from Basketball and Football is helping to pay for the non-revenue sports. Take away the non-revenue sports and they will struggle to spend the rest of the money before reluctantly handing back to the general fund as Ohio State and Texas do.
 

Schroekenthaller the 3rd will delight to know that his beloved Princeton will again play for football championships...if they can outpay Harvard and Yale.
 

atsgopher said:
Sure, see your point. I think we agree. The whole crux of this issue is players wanting more.... I'm trying to show there is not a whole lot more to give out. The NFL provides a snapshot of a for profit business that is most analogous to college football. The Margins are low, just like in college if it were converted to for profit.

I think the large dollar amounts discussed and high salaries confuse this issue as people think that robber barons are out there raking in "uncle scrooge" money; then swimming in the money bin. Meanwhile, poor little college players work in 18th century style coal mines.

It simply isn't true. They profit, just not any better than most business. The Changes called for by the op would require higher margins.
Click to expand...

The NFL isn't for profit.
 


atsgopher said:
Sure, see your point. I think we agree. The whole crux of this issue is players wanting more.... I'm trying to show there is not a whole lot more to give out. The NFL provides a snapshot of a for profit business that is most analogous to college football. The Margins are low, just like in college if it were converted to for profit.

I think the large dollar amounts discussed and high salaries confuse this issue as people think that robber barons are out there raking in "uncle scrooge" money; then swimming in the money bin. Meanwhile, poor little college players work in 18th century style coal mines.

It simply isn't true. They profit, just not any better than most business. The Changes called for by the op would require higher margins.
Click to expand...

Is was wondering if that was the case.

The NFL has a lot of bloated expenses because of their subsidizes from govt and taxpayers.

Having a NFL team does have an economic impact, just how much is very debatable. A half a billion dollars........no way.
 




I hope the Football and Hoops player get something. When you pack a stadium, get put on a video game, look the money the B10 Network is generating, have your jersey for sale for $50 in a pro shop, and get a playoff system added..... that is a ton of money. I'm sorry, I never got a dime of aid and have a Master's degree. I'm still paying 17 years after my undergrad a monthly loan bill. The free college argument is hollow for guys like Braxton Miller and even Phil Nelson who's jersey was up for sale and are promoted at every angle in the market.
 

There is an old saying "you can't have your cake and eat it too". The players, while they may have some legit complaints about playing conditions, have very little complaint when their education is paid for them. So my response is below as to how to fix this problem if they want to unionize.

1. Any union issues will be dealt with outside of the regular schedule - the Grambling situation, while bad, should not have occurred, as it should have been dealt with long before that. Jackson St. was the loser in that deal.
2. Make Unionizing only a consideration if they plan on staying to get their degree - if they leave early or don't, they have to repay it. No exceptions We encourage freeloading otherwise.
3. Make a percentage of the earnings off their name available to those student athletes only after they have completed their degree work. If you don't get that degree, then you have no complaints. Somebody might say "well that will encourage somebody to leave early" - NO, it isn't. It is telling somebody that the reason they are there first and foremost is the degree. Not everybody makes it to the pros.

That is just a start. Honestly, if I'm a football coach and doing things legally this isn't an issue and I don't want union folks hanging around my practice to wag their finger at me when they don't even understand the game. I think this is going to drive coaches away from the sport if it happens. To much admin....
 

dpodoll68 said:
What does the NCAA do that is illegal?

P.S. The NCAA isn't a cartel. You need cooperation and multiple parties in order to form a cartel. You earlier in this thread called the NCAA a monopoly - but oh, wait, now it's part of a cartel. You can't be both a monopoly and part of a cartel at the same time, as those two things are in direct competition with each other. You can't even keep your ridiculous sensationalistic rhetoric straight.
Click to expand...

http://smartfootball.com/grab-bag/is-the-ncaa-a-coercive-cartel#sthash.7boWZmfF.dpbs

The most common type of cartel is an agreement among competitors not to sell their product below a fixed price that will generate monopoly profits for the parties to the agreement. But another type of cartel, termed monopsonistic (from the Greek words for “one” and “purchasing of food”) rather than monopolistic (one seller, versus one buyer in a monopsonized market), is an agreement among competitors not to pay more than a fixed price for a key input, such as labor. By agreeing to pay less, the cartel purchases less of the input (and perhaps of lower quality), because less is supplied at the lower price (and suppliers may lower quality to compensate, by reducing their costs, for the lower price they receive). The National Collegiate Athletic Association behaves monopsonistically in forbidding its member colleges and universities to pay its athletes. Although cartels, including monopsonistic ones, are generally deemed to be illegal per se under American antitrust law, the NCAA’s monopsonistic behavior has thus far not been successfully challenged. The justification that the NCAA offers—that collegiate athletes are students and would be corrupted by being salaried—coupled with the fact that the members of the NCAA, and the NCAA itself, are formally not-for-profit institutions, have had sufficient appeal to enable the association to continue to impose and enforce its rule against paying student athletes, and a number of subsidiary rules designed to prevent the cheating by cartel members that plagues most cartels. As Becker points out, were it not for the monopsonistic rule against paying student athletes, these athletes would be paid; the monopsony transfers wealth from them to their “employers,” the colleges. A further consequence is that college teams are smaller and, more important, of lower quality than they would be if the student athletes were paid. . . . College athletics would be less profitable for colleges if the student athlete market were competitive. If permitted, colleges would continue to agree to limit recruitment of athletes who could not satisfy degree requirements and to require athletes to attend classes and thus be bona fide students, because otherwise competition for the best athletes would tend to eliminate the “student athlete”; college teams would be largely composed of athletes who had no interest in or capacity to obtain a college education; awarding them a degree would be meaningless. The college would be engaged in a business unrelated to its academic mission and would thus have to pay taxes on its teams’ earnings. Worse, alumni donations to their alma mater, which are stimulated by the success of the college’s teams, would wilt if the teams were composed of non-students. If the University of Chicago bought the Chicago Bears, and renamed the team the University of Chicago Bears, would alumni of the University of Chicago write bigger checks to the University? . . . The strongest argument against eliminating the NCAA cartel is that it would make colleges and universities poorer, and this would be a social loss if one assumes (plausibly) that higher education creates external benefits. Of course the government could replace the lost revenues with subsidies financed by taxes. But while monopsony is inefficient, tax increases create distortions similar to those created by monopoly and monopsony. - See more at: http://smartfootball.com/grab-bag/is-the-ncaa-a-coercive-cartel#sthash.7boWZmfF.dpuf
 

Let's just put this to bed. The NCAA is doomed in the next decade. Players will be paid (rightfully so in my opinion) and the big schools will separate from the small schools and it will be survival of the fittest.

I'm excited to learn how this will be structured; but, make no mistake it is happening. (Sorry to all of you guys screaming FREE SCHOOL when many of these kids are forced to go to school due to agreements between the NBA and NFL).
 

maroonedinCA said:
I'm excited to learn how this will be structured; but, make no mistake it is happening. (Sorry to all of you guys screaming FREE SCHOOL when many of these kids are forced to go to school due to agreements between the NBA and NFL).
Click to expand...

They are not AT ALL forced to go to school. They can play overseas (Brandon Jennings). They can train with pros until they're NFL eligible. They can play CFL or Arena as far as I'm aware.

Not only that, but why the hell would it be the NCAA's problem if the NFL / NBA are prohibiting them from joining those leagues?
 

maroonedinCA said:
Let's just put this to bed. The NCAA is doomed in the next decade. Players will be paid (rightfully so in my opinion) and the big schools will separate from the small schools and it will be survival of the fittest.

I'm excited to learn how this will be structured; but, make no mistake it is happening. (Sorry to all of you guys screaming FREE SCHOOL when many of these kids are forced to go to school due to agreements between the NBA and NFL).
Click to expand...

Colleges offer an opportunity to receive a free education by playing football. Whether or not that player has professional opportunities or not is not the fault or responsibility of the colleges.

It still baffles me that the unions can reach agreements with corporations to prevent 18 year olds from being employed in the work place due to their age.
 

Unionizing college athletics is years away, if ever

"The push by Northwestern University football players to form a labor union that would dramatically change the landscape of collegiate athletics likely will come down to a key legal question: Are college athletes employees of a university?

The 854,000-member United Steelworkers union, which is paying the legal bills for the athletes’ organizing drive, is betting that the answer is yes. “Our attorneys, [they all] believe, yes, they are employees,” said Tim Waters, the United Steelworkers national political director. But Waters predicted that the legal dispute with the NCAA, the governing body for major collegiate sports, could drag through the courts for years"

http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/242680561.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue
 

I can't wait until a season is cancelled for a strike or lockout! Seriously nobody is forcing these kids to play football. If Kain Colter is uncomfortable with the division between the amount of money he generates and what he sees, he can quit playing a game and pay for college like everyone else. Leave it to Northwestern to ruin college sports.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom