The Atlantic: The Shame of College Sports

[dpodoll68]

Let's say a kid is a whiz at math and science in high school. He graduates, can he go right into a job and earn a good salary? No, he has to prove himself in college and graduate. Well in college on a full ride due to his academics, he helps develop a product that makes the school millions of dollars. Does he see any of this? No, it gets pumped back into the school because the school is a non-profit.

This is a perfect analogy, and one I hadn't thought of! Excellent work!

I work side-by-side with researchers whose daily work eventually leads, in many cases, to patentable inventions. When they sign their employment contracts, they agree that any intellectual property developed becomes the property of the University, and not of the researchers themselves. The doctors who came up with the artificial heart, various cancer drugs, etc., etc. all made far less money than they would have if the world were "fair" because their inventions were the properties of their respective schools, much like the football team as an institution is the property of its respective school. Where are the articles bemoaning the unfair treatment of researchers who are taken advantage of and discarded by their employers? Will no one advocate for these poor academics?

 

[Winnipegopher]

Just to clarify.

Major junior hockey players are "professionals" only because the NCAA and the Junior leagues want them to be. The NCAA does not want to be over-run with Canadian players and the Junior leagues would effectively become glorified midget leagues.

They get paid a stipend of about $50 a week during the season, less than $2000 for the season. I don't think the football players would be happy with that.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Obviously, Division III must be shut down. Division III athletes work hard, and get no compensation at all. Why should one group be paid for their work, while another is not. The standard answer is "But Division I sports make money, while Division III sports do not!" But since when has pay for work had anything to do with whether an entity makes money? If your business makes more money, this doesn't necessarily mean you make more money. Your employer could choose to offer bonuses, but doesn't have to. And if your employer loses money, that doesn't mean you don't get paid! But that's the standard that the advocates of paying college athletes are using. If it is wrong not to pay D-I athletes, it is wrong not to pay D-III athletes.

We also have people competing for unpaid internships. These positions involve work, and people stand in line for a chance at one of them. These unpaid interns don't even have their room and board paid for. Clearly, if it is wrong not to pay D-I athletes, then unpaid internships are also wrong.

Comparing Division I athletes to slaves is absurd, because "voluntary slavery" is an oxymoron. What sort of slavery is it when people actually compete for the opportunity to be enslaved? Real slaves can't leave. College athletes can quit at any time they wish. Obviously, the college scholarship is something the players want, and they find the compensation of a college scholarship (which is quite a lot of money) adequate, or else they would not persue it.

I agree. It was interesting listening to PA and Ann Carrol on KFAN this morning talking about the Henderson Brothers and the Abdullah Brothers in the NFL. Their dads coached them to be football players for one reason to get a free college education. Everything beyond that is gravy. Scholarships are earned and competition/commitment is high to earn one.

 

[dpodoll68]

They get paid a stipend of about $50 a week during the season, less than $2000 for the season. I don't think the football players would be happy with that.

Division I-A players on scholarship already get more than that for a stipend anyway.

 

[AO54]

Nice try. I haven't said anything remotely comparable to North Korea or the Soviet Union. In North Korea or the Soviet Union, you simply accepted what you were told to accept.

When you're offered a job, you make a decision whether this offer is worthwhile (in other words, "adequate"). If not, you don't accept it and choose to do something else. It's the same way with college athletes. They are offered compensation, which is worth more than they could likely make as an 18 year old without a college degree, and they freely choose whether or not to accept it. No one will haul them to a Gulag if the do not.

The solution to paying players is to set up minor leagues. This works for baseball, there's no reason it wouldn't work for basketball or football.

of course you have, you're trying to judge someone's compensation based on what they need rather than what they are worth. You're advocating that limits be placed upon their worth in college by government. They don't have the option of picking a school where they can get paid more. A potential minor league system for basketball or football would not be competing equally with the colleges.

You are getting desperate. No one ever claimed that it was impossible to make money without a college degree. But the fact remains that the vast majority of people will make a whole lot more money with a college degree than without one.

D1 college football and basketball players are not among that vast majority---they're worth a lot in college before they get a degree.

 

[RodentRampage]

of course you have, you're trying to judge someone's compensation based on what they need rather than what they are worth. You're advocating that limits be placed upon their worth in college by government. They don't have the option of picking a school where they can get paid more.

Nonsense. I am not judging anyone's compensation. The prospective player judges it. If the prospective player decides it isn't worthwhile, he's free to go and do something else.

A potential minor league system for basketball or football would not be competing equally with the colleges.

There have been people insisting that minor leagues would undermine college sports. Minor league football and basketball would most likely siphon off the best of the players who otherwise would have gone to college. Minor league baseball and college baseball coexist quite well.

D1 college football and basketball players are not among that vast majority---they're worth a lot in college before they get a degree.

Absolutely D-I college football players are among that vast majority! For the overwhelming majority of college football and basketball players, the benefit of the college degree is enourmous.

 

[dpodoll68]

I especially enjoy this excerpt:

"'Money surrounds college sports,' says Domonique Foxworth, who is a cornerback for the NFL’s Baltimore Ravens and an executive-committee member for the NFL Players Association, and played for the University of Maryland. 'And every player knows those millions are floating around only because of the 18-to-22-year-olds.'"

The funny thing is that a lot of players really think that the fans follow the team because of them specifically. That is certainly true for a small minority who come and go because of certain players, but the overwhelming majority, the ones that were here 10 years ago, are here now, and will be here 10 years from now, care very little about the name on the back of the jersey. The name on the front of the jersey is what's important to them. The sooner that players with that line of thought realize this fact, the better off they will be.

 

[AO54]

Nonsense. I am not judging anyone's compensation. The prospective player judges it. If the prospective player decides it isn't worthwhile, he's free to go and do something else.

But what he isn't free to do is go to another college where he is paid more.

There have been people insisting that minor leagues would undermine college sports. Minor league football and basketball would most likely siphon off the best of the players who otherwise would have gone to college. Minor league baseball and college baseball coexist quite well.

What I meant by not competing equally was because of the obvious need to go to college in today's society. Guys like Joe Mauer had to make the choice between going to college or accepting the Twins minor league deal and make money right away. He should be able to choose both.

Absolutely D-I college football players are among that vast majority! For the overwhelming majority of college football and basketball players, the benefit of the college degree is enourmous.

Yes they're among the majority who benefit from a college degree, but they're part of the small minority whose skills as an athlete have great value while they are in college.

 

[GoAUpher]

This is a perfect analogy, and one I hadn't thought of! Excellent work!

I work side-by-side with researchers whose daily work eventually leads, in many cases, to patentable inventions. When they sign their employment contracts, they agree that any intellectual property developed becomes the property of the University, and not of the researchers themselves. The doctors who came up with the artificial heart, various cancer drugs, etc., etc. all made far less money than they would have if the world were "fair" because their inventions were the properties of their respective schools, much like the football team as an institution is the property of its respective school. Where are the articles bemoaning the unfair treatment of researchers who are taken advantage of and discarded by their employers? Will no one advocate for these poor academics?

It is a pretty good analogy and comparison. Except for the fact that the researchers are employees, named and contracted as such, and can avail themselves of employment protections (workers comp, etc). The very things that are clearly noted in the article as being denied to "student athletes". You still have to change the relationship between school and player to one of employer and employee if you want this scenario to make sense.

 

[AO54]

I especially enjoy this excerpt:

"'Money surrounds college sports,' says Domonique Foxworth, who is a cornerback for the NFL’s Baltimore Ravens and an executive-committee member for the NFL Players Association, and played for the University of Maryland. 'And every player knows those millions are floating around only because of the 18-to-22-year-olds.'"

The funny thing is that a lot of players really think that the fans follow the team because of them specifically. That is certainly true for a small minority who come and go because of certain players, but the overwhelming majority, the ones that were here 10 years ago, are here now, and will be here 10 years from now, care very little about the name on the back of the jersey. The name on the front of the jersey is what's important to them. The sooner that players with that line of thought realize this fact, the better off they will be.

The same can be said about NFL players/teams. Name on the front is more important than the back. I care far more if the vikings win, than if Chad Greenway gets a big contract, but in order to have a better chance of winning let's sign him for millions because he's worth it.

 

[RodentRampage]

Nothing prevents Mauer from going to college.

 

[dpodoll68]

The same can be said about NFL players/teams. Name on the front is more important than the back. I care far more if the vikings win, than if Chad Greenway gets a big contract, but in order to have a better chance of winning let's sign him for millions because he's worth it.

Of course there is a variable relationship between the teams and the athletes, and how much "draw" each holds to fans of the sport, but it's pretty self-evident that individual personalities are far more important to the pro sports fan than they are to the college sports fan. How many fans do the Bulls have now vs. when Jordan was playing? How many fans do the T-Wolves have now vs. when KG was here? How many fans do the Cavs have now vs. when James was there? How many fans will show up to watch the Colts this year with Manning hurt for the year? How many fans do the Vikings have now vs. when Moss (1st edition) was here? There is a reason the Vikings will probably have blackouts for the first time since 1997, and no, that year is not coincidental. Fanbases of college teams will wax and wane with the fortunes of the team (which, again, is about the team itself, and not about its players), but the core base will always be there because they have an "ownership" in the team that is just not there in the pros.

 

[AO54]

Nothing prevents Mauer from going to college.

In a world without Title IX that paid players what they're worth, he'd have already went to college. Players not as good as mauer not able to make it in the pros or even finish their degree wouldn't be back in the poverty that they came from.

 

[RodentRampage]

First of all, if they aren't cut out for college, they don't need to be in college, whether or not the players are paid. Secondly, the players who would be getting paid would be the players of Mauer's caliber. When people talk about figures like the best players deserving to get $100,000 (or whatever number they made up), they aren't talking about all players getting this kind of money, just the best players, such as the Mauer's. In any case, we already established that Title IX is not the reason players are not paid.

 

[AO54]

Of course there is a variable relationship between the teams and the athletes, and how much "draw" each holds to fans of the sport, but it's pretty self-evident that individual personalities are far more important to the pro sports fan than they are to the college sports fan. How many fans do the Bulls have now vs. when Jordan was playing? How many fans do the T-Wolves have now vs. when KG was here? How many fans do the Cavs have now vs. when James was there? How many fans will show up to watch the Colts this year with Manning hurt for the year? How many fans do the Vikings have now vs. when Moss (1st edition) was here? There is a reason the Vikings will probably have blackouts for the first time since 1997, and no, that year is not coincidental. Fanbases of college teams will wax and wane with the fortunes of the team (which, again, is about the team itself, and not about its players), but the core base will always be there because they have an "ownership" in the team that is just not there in the pros.

If individual sports personalities were more important to the pro sports fan, we'd have all jumped ship and become fans of the patriots or celtics to follow Moss and KG. Pro sports fans are pretty loyal to the team as well. This doesn't change the worth of the individual players. The developed superstars can get more endorsement money, but it's not going to help the team win. The salary from the vikings and wolves isn't based upon their celebrity, but their production on the court. Fans will come to watch a winner.

 

[AO54]

First of all, if they aren't cut out for college, they don't need to be in college, whether or not the players are paid. Secondly, the players who would be getting paid would be the players of Mauer's caliber. When people talk about figures like the best players deserving to get $100,000 (or whatever number they made up), they aren't talking about all players getting this kind of money, just the best players, such as the Mauer's. In any case, we already established that Title IX is not the reason players are not paid.

The average basketball player at Duke is worth a million. This doesn't mean that they would all earn $1Million, but the least valuable player on the roster would still be worth hundreds of thousands. Of course Title IX is a reason players aren't paid their true value. They're not allowed to because of this law.

 

[dpodoll68]

If individual sports personalities were more important to the pro sports fan, we'd have all jumped ship and become fans of the patriots or celtics to follow Moss and KG.

That's silly. Proximity is the #1 indicator of fanhood regardless of sport or level of competition. Do you disagree? It's not a choice between being a fan of one team or another. For most, it's a choice between being a fan of your local team because of how good they are/who their players are, or not being one at all.

Pro sports fans are pretty loyal to the team as well.

I never said they weren't. It's pretty inarguable that the average college fan is more loyal than the average pro fan. Look at the average age of the crowd at a Gophers game vs. the average age of the crowd at a Vikings game for proof. This will hold true in every other college/pro sports town as well. I guarantee that the average Huskie fan is older than the average Seahawk fan, that the average Panther fan is older than the average Steeler fan, etc. Part of that is because it's more expensive to follow pro sports, but a larger component is because fans still cheer the school they attended 60 years ago. When's the last time you saw an 85-year-old at a Vikings game?

This doesn't change the worth of the individual players.

Most people will tell you that they're not being paid what they're "worth". I don't see a lot of people writing articles advocating that the average middle-class worker deserves to be paid more. Most people are just thankful to have a job right now.

This is what the market is. It's no different than any other market in the world. Those who control the means of production set the rules. If you don't like it, choose a different market. No one is forcing anyone to do anything otherwise.

The salary from the vikings and wolves isn't based upon their celebrity, but their production on the court.

Frankly, I'm not sure what this has to do with the issue at hand, but is this a serious statement? Derek Jeter? Vernon Wells? Todd Helton? Alfonso Soriano? Jermaine O'Neal? Mike Hampton? Need I go on? The reason you don't see many overpaid NFL players is because the majority of their contracts are not guaranteed, and they are cut when they don't produce. The sentimental/marketing/fanbase value of a player has as much, if not more, to do with the contract of the average star player regardless of sport.

 

[RodentRampage]

Of course Title IX is a reason players aren't paid their true value.

As we have already established, 1) the ban on paying players long predates Title IX. 2) There is no movement among university presidents and regents (the only people who matter) to pay players. A stipend is a different matter. 3) There is no indication of a movement to break away from the NCAA somehow thwarted by Title IX.

If it were the case that players were paid before Title IX, but not afterwards, then that would be an indication that Title IX was the reason that players were not paid. If there were university presidents and regents who wanted to break away from the NCAA to pay players, but were thwarted by Title IX, then that would be an indication that Title IX was a reason players were not paid.

Neither of these are the true. Therefore, Title IX is not the reason that players were not paid. The fact that Title IX might require paying female athletes doesn't mean that Title IX is the reason players are not paid. Colleges could still break away from the NCAA, legally pay players, they would just have to pay them less. They could drop both men's and women's non-revenue sports if they wanted to. That would free up money to pay players.

 

[DLguy]

It is a pretty good analogy and comparison. Except for the fact that the researchers are employees, named and contracted as such, and can avail themselves of employment protections (workers comp, etc). The very things that are clearly noted in the article as being denied to "student athletes". You still have to change the relationship between school and player to one of employer and employee if you want this scenario to make sense.

That is true for employees. I am talking about students who do research with professors. They are paid in scholarship or a minimal salary. (full ride football players get a minimal salary as well.) And worker's comp? If they get injured, do they not retain their scholarship? They also get absolute full insurance from the University. My roommates were on very minimal scholarships for track and they got unbelievable health insurance. Believe me, these kids on full ride scholarships are getting a TON of benefits. I will never feel bad.

 

[DLguy]

If individual sports personalities were more important to the pro sports fan, we'd have all jumped ship and become fans of the patriots or celtics to follow Moss and KG. Pro sports fans are pretty loyal to the team as well. This doesn't change the worth of the individual players. The developed superstars can get more endorsement money, but it's not going to help the team win. The salary from the vikings and wolves isn't based upon their celebrity, but their production on the court. Fans will come to watch a winner.

Are you kidding me? You just used examples of people that fans DID follow. Do you know how many people became Celtics fans when KG left to go there? A LOT. Look how many PACKER fans were still Brett Favre fans when he came to one of their biggest rivals!!! Do you think if a Minny guy transferred to Iowa or Wisky that a bunch of Minnesota fans would follow them? Hell no, not for a second.

 

[DLguy]

Also, the market does not allow for players to be "paid" more than they are now. Is the U not in a constant battle every year to balance the budget? And if we do have extra money, that has to go to upgrading facilities to better prepare these athletes for the future. And you can make the argument for cutting non revenue sports. But that is not what any school wants to do. You want to be a well rounded athletic department and school. NFL pays players a ton because they have the money to do so and still make a huge profit. Something the vast majority of schools cannot do. Unless you want an unfair system where only the top ten programs that can afford to pay, do. And then there is no point of all the other teams existing.

 

[GoAUpher]

That is true for employees. I am talking about students who do research with professors. They are paid in scholarship or a minimal salary. (full ride football players get a minimal salary as well.) And worker's comp? If they get injured, do they not retain their scholarship? They also get absolute full insurance from the University. My roommates were on very minimal scholarships for track and they got unbelievable health insurance. Believe me, these kids on full ride scholarships are getting a TON of benefits. I will never feel bad.

But they can't get the same type of lifetime coverages due to injury "on the job" as other employees. Per the article, that was the point of the student athlete terminology.

I'm not saying they have it terrible across the board, but the article lays out a pretty solid case that "student athletes" are put into a system where the deck is stacked against them in very specific scenarios and ways (in a fashion that is illegal for non-amateurs).

 

[DLguy]

But they can't get the same type of lifetime coverages due to injury "on the job" as other employees. Per the article, that was the point of the student athlete terminology.

I'm not saying they have it terrible across the board, but the article lays out a pretty solid case that "student athletes" are put into a system where the deck is stacked against them in very specific scenarios and ways (in a fashion that is illegal for non-amateurs).

I havent read the entire article, because it is way to long. Not sure how they are put into a situation where the cards are stacked against them. The get all of there schooling expenses paid for. Every damn cent of it. They get 3 full meals every single day. Rent covered. Right there, what else much does a college student have to pay for? Entertainment? Well guess what, they get a pretty hefty check for that as well. So much so that a freind of mine in college was able to buy a new car with his extra money. He was damn good with his money, but that kind of shows that they get plenty. I went to the U with no scholarship and worked part time and still came out with $30k in loans. These guys come out with nothing. And lets remember that very few make the pros, so that argument is baseless. And for those, guess what. They are living 3 years with everything paid for and the best training facilities and coaches in the country to get them the opportunity to make the NFL. And if they arent as good, now they are out of college, with a degree, and debt free. Wish I could say that.

 

[Buck_Buchanan]

Title IX a pay-for-play roadblock

ESPN article which addresses some of the issues / concerns / debate many have made in reference to Title IX, payment / stipend for players, and the principals of capitalism on this thread.