Northwestern Players Want a Union

[Gopherguy0723]

Wow, good one. Funny, you can't even answer with a rhetorical quip. Come on.
Don't like rhetoric, Try logic:

In order for scholarship limit to be exploitation, the scholarship as compensation must be a price cap. If it were a price floor, the athletes would be getting the greater benefit already.

Thus, demand for scholarship college ball players must exceed supply.

So all that's left to do is crunch the numbers:

there are approximately (assuming 85 per team) 53,500 college football players. Roughly 23,689 on scholarship annually (estimates are team times allowable scholarships for NCAA athletes). That leaves approximately 29,861 that pay to play. Then of course, you could add in the thousands of ball players who'd play, but don't for various other reasons.

Said again for effect, 29,861 pay to play. Thus, we can conclude that the supply of college players exceeds the quantity demanded.

Thus, in a free market where the forces of supply and demand govern, scholarships as compensation are more than what the market bears for the average.

You inferred quite a bit. I have no problem with you making an economic argument. Your legal understanding happens to be shallow and not fully thought through. I have no interest in debating the economic argument. The legal argument is what matters. The economic situation will take care of itself. If the market changes, oh well.

Stay in your lane.

 

[RodentRampage]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...8/college-football-players-union-pay-for-play

According to this article, the players who want a union aren't demanding to be paid. I think it is merely the foot in the door, once the NCAA had to have a CBA with college athletes, demands for payment would probably follow pretty quickly. I could get behind some of the demands, however. Some of the demands are about player safety, which most people think would be a good idea. I'm for scholarships covering the whole cost of college, and would be OK with a stipend. Other demands would basically make a scholarship guaranteed for four years, but let the player transfer.

I'm all for the demand to increase graduation rates. But there's another thing to contend with. "Even the players' academic lives are controlled as evidenced by the fact that they are required to attend study hall if they fail to maintain a certain grade point average (GPA) in their classes," Ohr wrote. If you want schools to raise graduation rates, you can't tie their hands behind their backs in getting students to go to class and get an education.

Allowing players to have jobs sounds good, but that opens the door to boosters paying players to sit by their pool.

Getting paid isn't on this list of demands. The only problem is that if you accept this list of demands, will the other shoe dropping be a demand for payment? I'd be shocked if that didn't happen. I could get behind this list of demands - perhaps even the one that doesn't hold the institution accountable for violations, only the particular person, even though I would have to hold my nose for that one - if payment was off the table for good.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

I am not a lawyer or an economist, and I do not play one on the internet.

Just a sports fan, with the following opinion:

As I read it, the move for unionization seems to be tied to (insurance) protection for athletes who are injured; some educational guarantees, like grad school tuition; and some additional stipends and/or spending money. I don't get the sense that the players pushing this are demanding/expecting to punch a time clock and receive a paycheck.

But, if this moves forward, I could see it speeding up the move for the major BCS conferences to break away from the NCAA and form their own organization - leaving the NCAA to oversee the lower divisions. Again, if the push is due to players demanding a share of the revenue they generate, then the 1AA, D2 and D3 schools - that do not generate the revenue of the BCS schools - would seem to be in a different category.

 

[atsgopher]

You inferred quite a bit. I have no problem with you making an economic argument. Your legal understanding happens to be shallow and not fully thought through. I have no interest in debating the economic argument. The legal argument is what matters. The economic situation will take care of itself. If the market changes, oh well.

Stay in your lane.

Kid, your whole argument concerns a law that was a response to economics, Price Fixing, Collusion. Economics are simply reflection of human activity, the law catches up with economic reality, not the other way around.

If you think you can practice law without being affected by econ, well then, quit your day job; Your knowledge of the law is very shallow.

 

[Gopherocious]

IF the unionized players choose to be paid, I think it's a no brainer to take back any sort of scholarship/housing/meal plan that player gets, and any sort of income is then taxed. If they want to be employees, treat them as a professor, janitor, or librarian. No extra benefits, and taxed like everyone else. I have a feeling there will be some second guessing as to whether or not they made the right decision then.

 

[disco]

Literally anyone on Earth is free to start a minor league for players that can enter the league at 18 and would compete with the NCAA for players. Why has no one done it, ever, in the near-century since professional football came into existence?

It was foretold when the coaching salaries began to sky rocket. It will take deep pockets to make a professional under-league happen so therefore I believe the NFL will be behind it, at least in some way. It will happen, however. No matter what side you come down on the issue of players unionizing, this ruling represents the beginning of the end of D1 sports "as we know it". The Big Money ruined it. It always does.

The reason it hasn't worked, and won't work, is the emotional attachment people have not just to individual sports, but the leagues themselves. It's the reason the WFL, USFL, XFL and UFL all failed. People build their emotional attachment to what they perceive to be the top level league of a sport. BCS level football falls into this category. College football has existed for well over 100 years. Fans have built up loyalty to these programs, just as they have their favorite NFL/MLB/NHL/NBA teams. To replace them with some minor football feeder program isn't going to work for the same reason AAA baseball can't generate but a fraction of the revenue of MLB. Your hypothetical minor football league isn't going to generate squat compared to major college football, because nobody will care about it or pay to see it.

Another thing that nobody has brought up, is that the power structure of college football has largely shifted to the South. Pretty much all of those states are right to work states, where unions have little power or respect, which IMO severely limits the impact of this decision. So Northwestern decides to unionize - does anyone really think that Alabama or Florida or Tennessee would follow suit?

While the power structure of the NCAA may be greatly diminished in the coming years, I think this particular ruling is much ado about nothing. The Ed O'Bannon suit is more relevant.

Regarding my first point though (and kind of on a tangent) it's interesting to note how the perception of major/minor league is so different here than with English soccer, with relegation and promotion, where even a team relegated to a lower league still has a loyal fan base.

 

[50PoundHead]

I am not a lawyer or an economist, and I do not play one on the internet.

Just a sports fan, with the following opinion:

As I read it, the move for unionization seems to be tied to (insurance) protection for athletes who are injured; some educational guarantees, like grad school tuition; and some additional stipends and/or spending money. I don't get the sense that the players pushing this are demanding/expecting to punch a time clock and receive a paycheck.

But, if this moves forward, I could see it speeding up the move for the major BCS conferences to break away from the NCAA and form their own organization - leaving the NCAA to oversee the lower divisions. Again, if the push is due to players demanding a share of the revenue they generate, then the 1AA, D2 and D3 schools - that do not generate the revenue of the BCS schools - would seem to be in a different category.

I am an ornery Swede of average height and as someone with fellow Scandinavian heritage, I commend you on this post. I think you've got it in a nutshell.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Kid, your whole argument concerns a law that was a response to economics, Price Fixing, Collusion. Economics are simply reflection of human activity, the law catches up with economic reality, not the other way around.

If you think you can practice law without being affected by econ, well then, quit your day job; Your knowledge of the law is very shallow.

Yawn. Laws came before markets. Laws made markets. New laws and new rules will make new markets that are consistent with society. Only a B school sports fan would argue the status quo is fine. No other industry would be allowed to openly get away with what the NCAA does.

Son, please stop before you go on another B school rant about how the NCAA is fine and how the laws are inconsistent with corporate exploitation that we as a society should embrace.

We are all aware that laws are often written to benefit a given market. What's not unsurprising is your desire to codify exploitation. The NCAA is one market that certainly needs an intervention.

 

[dpodoll68]

"Exploitation." Give me a f'in' break.

 

[RodentRampage]

.....

 

[MRJ]

Does this mean the end of non-revenue sports?

Can Title IX and collective bargaining co-exist?

According to some posters here, demands for pay are not currently part of the conditions for forming a union in this case. But that won't last long imo. It's only a matter of time before the players start demanding compensation. When that happens, nonrevenue sports might completely disappear.

As for Title IX, that might be the only saving grace in this situation. As a federal law, it's going to be tough to inform and convince women they no longer deserve equal opportunity just because a bunch of college football (and eventually, basketball) players want to be paid. Would be an even tougher sell to the American public in this regard.

On it's face Title IX and collective bargaining seem completely diametrically opposed in this case, and that might be the only thing that stops this completely taking down the nonrevenue sports altogether.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

Tuition, R&B, value of instruction via coaches and strength and conditioning, food, tuitors, etc at a school like NW has got to have a real dollar value of over $100k per year. If you're an "employee", then fill out a W2 and report your income. It's in-kind compensation. For the athletes then to break even, the university would have to compensate them over $40k/year to cover taxes on the in-kind compensation and the added revenue given the current federal tax structure and Illinois's state income tax structure, not to mention the stipend they currently receive. Then the university would be on the hook for payroll taxes. We're talking about millions of dollars of expenditures just for the status quo for NW's FB program where the athletes break even financially.

If the NLRB considers you an employee and you want to be considered an employee...fill out a W2. See how quickly you change your tune.

 

[TrapperDoo]

Law school; never been. As for economics, well I agree you've seen this, but like most people don't notice the abstraction. People will knowingly die for pride/recognition. No one will knowingly die for money.

another example
Try this experiment with kids: tell them they have to do a chore (say the dishes) for the family (could be any group where someone would take pride). On the other hand, tell the same kid he will be paid compensation for doing the dishes. The contrast is amazing as the kid in the monetized case can very well just walk away and choose their free time over money. It's a heck of a lot harder to walk away and choose free time over the pride in the family unit.

Better still is to go look at the motivating factors in the workforce. Pay people and they'll do a job yes, but introduce a competition and they'll do the job well, they'll more likely to go the extra mile. Whereas you start adding monetized compensation you get ever diminishing returns.

How old are you? Do you even have kids? What planet are you from?

 

[Rescooter]

Tuition, R&B, value of instruction via coaches and strength and conditioning, food, tuitors, etc at a school like NW has got to have a real dollar value of over $100k per year. If you're an "employee", then fill out a W2 and report your income. It's in-kind compensation. For the athletes then to break even, the university would have to compensate them over $40k/year to cover taxes on the in-kind compensation and the added revenue given the current federal tax structure and Illinois's state income tax structure, not to mention the stipend they currently receive. Then the university would be on the hook for payroll taxes. We're talking about millions of dollars of expenditures just for the status quo for NW's FB program where the athletes break even financially.

If the NLRB considers you an employee and you want to be considered an employee...fill out a W2. See how quickly you change your tune.

This.

The only thing I can add to the conversation is if unionization goes through, I will never buy a college football ticket again.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

How old are you? Do you even have kids? What planet are you from?

Don't bother. He doesn't have a clue unless it comes to corporate earnings. He is incapable of seeing the world through any way other than corporate economic theory.

 

[scher215]

What would happen if, for example, the union goes to negotiate a CBA with the NCAA. And they can't agree. Do we have a college football lockout? Can the NCAA just use replacement players then? Aka students not in the union?

 

[station19]

What would happen if, for example, the union goes to negotiate a CBA with the NCAA. And they can't agree. Do we have a college football lockout? Can the NCAA just use replacement players then? Aka students not in the union?

Would the union negotiate with the ncaa or the school? The ncaa is not the employer.

 

[dpodoll68]

Don't bother. He doesn't have a clue unless it comes to corporate earnings. He is incapable of seeing the world through any way other than corporate economic theory.

You appear to not have a clue about anything, up to and including the law at which you're allegedly an expert. You can't even answer a simple question that I've asked multiple times.

 

[scher215]

The reason it hasn't worked, and won't work, is the emotional attachment people have not just to individual sports, but the leagues themselves. It's the reason the WFL, USFL, XFL and UFL all failed. People build their emotional attachment to what they perceive to be the top level league of a sport. BCS level football falls into this category. College football has existed for well over 100 years. Fans have built up loyalty to these programs, just as they have their favorite NFL/MLB/NHL/NBA teams. To replace them with some minor football feeder program isn't going to work for the same reason AAA baseball can't generate but a fraction of the revenue of MLB. Your hypothetical minor football league isn't going to generate squat compared to major college football, because nobody will care about it or pay to see it. Another thing that nobody has brought up, is that the power structure of college football has largely shifted to the South. Pretty much all of those states are right to work states, where unions have little power or respect, which IMO severely limits the impact of this decision. So Northwestern decides to unionize - does anyone really think that Alabama or Florida or Tennessee would follow suit? While the power structure of the NCAA may be greatly diminished in the coming years, I think this particular ruling is much ado about nothing. The Ed O'Bannon suit is more relevant. Regarding my first point though (and kind of on a tangent) it's interesting to note how the perception of major/minor league is so different here than with English soccer, with relegation and promotion, where even a team relegated to a lower league still has a loyal fan base.

1) if it is the team name, logo, school, etc. driving the revenue, how does that impact the players drive income argument? This has always been a struggle for me to understand. Sure the NCAA needs players to make money, but what is Johhny Manziel's monetary value without the NCAA?

2) I don't ever see this being an issue for basketball. Adam Silver can easily say, oh you want to be paid? Come join the NBDL! It's that simple. Basketball has a minor league. Right now it just doesn't include a tournament, ESPN coverage, a band, cheerleaders, schooling, state of the art facilities, etc. Now if more players moved to the NBDL those things may come, but as best I can tell right now the NCAAB compensates better than the minor league does, it's just not all monetary.

3) I love the way minor leagues work in soccer. I wish we did it here for basketball and football. Would be awesome. Basketball especially it would work better, but it'd be great.

 

[atsgopher]

Yawn. Laws came before markets. Laws made markets. New laws and new rules will make new markets that are consistent with society. Only a B school sports fan would argue the status quo is fine. No other industry would be allowed to openly get away with what the NCAA does.

Son, please stop before you go on another B school rant about how the NCAA is fine and how the laws are inconsistent with corporate exploitation that we as a society should embrace.

We are all aware that laws are often written to benefit a given market. What's not unsurprising is your desire to codify exploitation. The NCAA is one market that certainly needs an intervention.

Where do you get B school? I made an econ argument, that's not B School, try a liberal art.

The first codified law is the Code of Hammurabi. It has rules covering trade. Markets come first kid.

A market is simply the interaction of two or more people. Laws are developed to make such interaction more orderly. The people have to interact first. Markets, come first.

Think though your own example of price fixing and collusion. If the law were to come first, that necessitates that someone brainstormed those potential concepts, declared them illegal, then people started doing them. That is utterly ridiculous. Reality dictates those practices were happening and deemed to harm society, then outlawed.

 

[atsgopher]

How old are you? Do you even have kids? What planet are you from?

So this was lost on you. Ok, never mind, this medium isn't the best to explain empirical observations on motivation absent some basic understanding.

 

[imthewalrus]

This.

The only thing I can add to the conversation is if unionization goes through, I will never buy a college football ticket again.

IF I were to ever cease to renew my season tickets for my Golden Gopher Football Team it would probably be because of the OUTRAGEOUS sums of money that head coaches and coordinators are granted by totally OVERPAID athletic directors and administrators and are rubber-stamped by the Regents.

Just recently the athletic director at the Ohio State (who earns almost a million dollars per year) earned an $18,000.00 bonus because one of the school's wrestlers earned distinctions in his sport. This athletic director gets bonus money any time any athlete receives honors of distinction (All-American, etc) and brings positive attention to the sport and the school. The last time I heard, wrestling doesn't generate much of any income and in fact loses money when all expenses are considered. But, still this greedy athletic director got paid $18,000.00 because of this student athlete's great accomplishments. Some how this just does NOT seem right. There is TOO MUCH money going to coaches and athletic directors and you people get all bent out of shape because the student athletes at Northwestern are SMART enough to push the power structure of NCAA Athletics a little bit?

Too many coaches and athletic directors are just robbing the system blind. These multi-million dollar contracts and extensions of contracts for coaches and the outrageous bonus packages even the overpaid athletic directors are paying themselves because of the outstanding accomplishments of select student athletes puts what these bright student athletes at NU are fighting for in just a bit different perspective. I say: "...more power to the student athletes..." as they push on the fat-cats sitting in the athletics director's offices, the prexy's offices and the coaches offices. In a system that showers the coaches, athletic directors, prexys and the staffs of these classes of people, just WHY shouldn't the student athletes have a seat at the table that divides ALL that B1G Network, Final Four and National Championship play-off tv money to line their own pockets. Too much of it goes into the direct deposit accounts of the coaches and athletic directors right now. What good are the darn athletic directors and coaches without the players? Who gets the concussions...the blown-out knees...all the injuries? Not the athletic director, that's for sure.

Power to the student athletes! ; 0 )

 

[50PoundHead]

I think walrus hits some very pertinent points. Like I said in my post about marginally-talented white guys who are little more than overgrown ticket takers. The jockocracy has run this into the ground. A little bit of give at a different point in time and we're not even talking about this.

 

[imthewalrus]

One more time, The NCAA is the best thing the Land Grants have to level the playing field with the Privates. remove the NCAA at your own peril Publics.

IF you are so paranoid about the "privates" take the darn "land grants" private then.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Where do you get B school? I made an econ argument, that's not B School, try a liberal art.

The first codified law is the Code of Hammurabi. It has rules covering trade. Markets come first kid.

A market is simply the interaction of two or more people. Laws are developed to make such interaction more orderly. The people have to interact first. Markets, come first.

Think though your own example of price fixing and collusion. If the law were to come first, that necessitates that someone brainstormed those potential concepts, declared them illegal, then people started doing them. That is utterly ridiculous. Reality dictates those practices were happening and deemed to harm society, then outlawed.

You show your ignorance of law. Many would argue there is such a thing as natural law, which would mean law always existed. Markets are a human construct.

Laws and rules both regulate and create markets. You cannot have a market with absence of law. You would have no currency, no recourse from being robbed, etc.

You really are completely out of your element. Stick to what you know. Your legal ignorance is apparent.

As such, there is nothing more to discuss with you.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

IF I were to ever cease to renew my season tickets for my Golden Gopher Football Team it would probably be because of the OUTRAGEOUS sums of money that head coaches and coordinators are granted by totally OVERPAID athletic directors and administrators and are rubber-stamped by the Regents.

Just recently the athletic director at the Ohio State (who earns almost a million dollars per year) earned an $18,000.00 bonus because one of the school's wrestlers earned distinctions in his sport. This athletic director gets bonus money any time any athlete receives honors of distinction (All-American, etc) and brings positive attention to the sport and the school. The last time I heard, wrestling doesn't generate much of any income and in fact loses money when all expenses are considered. But, still this greedy athletic director got paid $18,000.00 because of this student athlete's great accomplishments. Some how this just does NOT seem right. There is TOO MUCH money going to coaches and athletic directors and you people get all bent out of shape because the student athletes at Northwestern are SMART enough to push the power structure of NCAA Athletics a little bit?

Too many coaches and athletic directors are just robbing the system blind. These multi-million dollar contracts and extensions of contracts for coaches and the outrageous bonus packages even the overpaid athletic directors are paying themselves because of the outstanding accomplishments of select student athletes puts what these bright student athletes at NU are fighting for in just a bit different perspective. I say: "...more power to the student athletes..." as they push on the fat-cats sitting in the athletics director's offices, the prexy's offices and the coaches offices. In a system that showers the coaches, athletic directors, prexys and the staffs of these classes of people, just WHY shouldn't the student athletes have a seat at the table that divides ALL that B1G Network, Final Four and National Championship play-off tv money to line their own pockets. Too much of it goes into the direct deposit accounts of the coaches and athletic directors right now. What good are the darn athletic directors and coaches without the players? Who gets the concussions...the blown-out knees...all the injuries? Not the athletic director, that's for sure.

Power to the student athletes! ; 0 )

Coaches, ADs, and adminstrators in general are massively over paid at the collegiate level. This unionization could correct the market.

 

[atsgopher]

You show your ignorance of law. Many would argue there is such a thing as natural law, which would mean law always existed. Markets are a human construct.

Laws and rules both regulate and create markets. You cannot have a market with absence of law. You would have no currency, no recourse from being robbed, etc.

You really are completely out of your element. Stick to what you know. Your legal ignorance is apparent.

As such, there is nothing more to discuss with you.

Your post says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Are you pretending that Philosophy is now in the domain of the law? Wow, kid that is weak.

natural Law requires humans to observe nature and deduce from it. Those arguing natural law are generally Ancient Greek philosophers or Hobbes, but those all require reason. Try again.

Law is a human construct too buttercup.

You do have markets with the absence of law. Law only makes them better and more efficient. Think it through, this is first day stuff.

Laws that regulate do so after things arise. You don't regulate something, then go out and create it.

A market occurs when two individuals trade with one another. So you think that necessitates currency? So I can't trade items directly with another person? The recourse in the absence of law is physical violence, which sucks, so people created laws regulating markets which helps ease in liquidity. However, it's not a necessary condition, nor is it sufficient. Moreover, currency need not be monetary. Some use shells, some use cigarettes, others use food. I don't need an authority to pronounce a currency to create a market.

I do like the "insult the guy and say nothing substantive approach." Me smart, you doomb. see I right.. ha ha ha, you don't now X subject because me know it. So easy even a caveman could do it.

 

[TrapperDoo]

So this was lost on you. Ok, never mind, this medium isn't the best to explain empirical observations on motivation absent some basic understanding.

Can't answer the questions? I'm not surprized. Your smug, pathetic attempt to come across as intellectually superior may please your professors, but not me. I see that the only place you will ever be able to get a job will be as a centerfold in "Fisting" magazine.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Can't answer the questions? I'm not surprized. Your smug, pathetic attempt to come across as intellectually superior may please your professors, but to me, I see the only place you will ever be able to get a job will be as a centerfold in "Fisting" magazine.

He is a smug ass. Just put him on ignore like I just did. You'll never hear his junk again.

 

[bga1]

Coaches, ADs, and adminstrators in general are massively over paid at the collegiate level. This unionization could correct the market.

Coaches, ADs and other are "overpaid" because right now the fans love the product that college sports put out. If this unionization is followed to it's conclusion there may end up being very few who care about college sports anymore. It'll get ruined for all but a small group of schools and we won't be one of them. Players are going to be playing for the highest bidder- why would this end at a little stipend once the cat is out of the bag? Either they are employees or they aren't. If they are then higher pay is in play and competitiveness for most schools will go out the door for good.