• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Should the NFL Play at all in 2020? RBF

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
By what current law, specifically, are players entitled to money they are not receiving? You'd figure if there was some current law already on the books that mandated what you claim, there would have been all sorts of lawsuits filed in which players would have cashed in on that legal entitlement. I'm not aware of any. There was one non-binding opinion by the National Labor Relations Board holding that student athletes were employees entitled to minimum wage, but that was tossed almost immediately by the Court of Appeals.

You're advocating for a change to current law -- it's not what current law actually is. If you want to make it so that college scholarship athletes are legally considered "employees" under the Fair Labor Standards Act, you need to change that law.



I agree -it isn't their fault. I'm just saying that's the reality of the financial situation. If you force schools to take that football income over expenses and pay it out to football players as cash, that same money cannot be used to fund other sports. And that makes it very likely some of those sports disappear. That will be the reality, regardless of fault. It's already happening now because those schools are not willing to go further into the red to fund non-revenue producing sports when revenues are down because of the pandemic.

It's also relevant to look at that in terms of the argument that colleges are making huge "profits" off of athletes. Well, not exactly. They're using a huge chunk of that money to fund the athletic activities of other college students. That's not quite as greedy/nefarious as you're making it out to be.



Title IX will ensure that some small number of women's sports exist to offset the number of guys playing football. But if guys want to play a sport other than football or basketball, they may be out of luck. As will be a lot of women's sports not necessary to meet Title IX requirements.



On this, we absolutely agree.

So you have to ask the question -- if big-time college athletes are the true revenue drivers for college football, why hasn't a "minor league" for football that can take advantage of their economic value while paying them at the same time been able to survive? If colleges are simply exploiting them, then the most logical thing for them to do is leave ,and just become professionals elsewhere. That's why I'm a big fan of something like the XFL giving these guys an alternative to college football. It'd be an interesting market experiment as to who is more likely to survive and thrive -- college football without those players who demand to be paid, or the individual players without the support of the college system.

Maybe the best thing would be a player-owned league, like a co-op. That way, there are no team owners or administrators profiting off the labor of the players. Just the players running their own league, and keeping all the money for themselves. Maybe instead of paying expensive coaches salaries, the teams are all player-coached. Why not?

Let the market decide!

I'm not going to gourimoko a response here, because I don't have enough time.

A few things:

1. The US laws on the books don't support athletes being paid, because they were written to specifically strip them of the freedom to do so.

That's the core issue which needs solving, years of legislation that has stripped free people of their economic rights in order to play a game that makes other people money.

2. Not only are colleges making huge money off athletics, corporations and the other major stakeholders are as well. I don't need to repeat this, but we don't need to discuss the fact that collegiate athletics in multiple sports are extremely profitable for nearly everyone but the students who play them.

3. With regards to "why hasn't another league developed," its because the NCAA and NFL work in coordination with one another and have the power to head off any competitors to their business model.

They have an immense amount of power over the barriers to entry in this marketplace.

4. All for the co-op. The way things are heading, we can reasonably expect the Power 5 conferences to break away from the NCAA entirely to form their own thing.
 
An extremely low percentage.

My 59 year old out of shape father who works in healthcare had the virus and never had as much as a single symptom.

Young, professional athletes in peak shape will have far less of an issue than pretty much the majority for he population
correlation does not equal causation.

pchart1.jpg


also a singular data point is not all data.
 
I'm not going to gourimoko a response here, because I don't have enough time.

A few things:

1. The US laws on the books don't support athletes being paid....

Agreed. That was my point.

2. Not only are colleges making huge money off athletics, corporations and the other major stakeholders are as well. I don't need to repeat this, but we don't need to discuss the fact that collegiate athletics in multiple sports are extremely profitable for nearly everyone but the students who play them.

I will simply say that the economic interests/contributions/benefits for students vary wildly. For a great many student athletes at a great many schools, getting a scholarship for playing at their level is a good deal. For the much smaller number of marquee players, they are likely contributing more than they are getting in return. So there is an imbalance.

3. With regards to "why hasn't another league developed," its because the NCAA and NFL work in coordination with one another and have the power to head off any competitors to their business model. They have an immense amount of power over the barriers to entry in this marketplace.

A "pre-NFL" minor league isn't a competitor to the NFL. In fact, the NFL funded NFL Europe for awhile precisely because it wanted a minor league, just as do the other professional sports. It just wasn't financially viable.

And I don't think a spring minor league would be a competitor even to the NCAA. It's why a guy like Delaney supports the idea. It would funnel off to a separate league those players who don't really want to be in school, just want to play ball, and are pushing to be paid. Well, great. Let them play in their league, and the headaches for the NCAA are greatly reduced. The NCAA become the league for college kids, as it always planned to be, and the XFL or whatever is the league for pro prospects who want to get paid early.

The eternal problem is whether such a league is financially viable on its own, especially if it is going to be paying players some multiple of the value of a college education on an annual basis.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what's more likely, CTE issues or long term CV damage?
No sarcasm, legit wonder which is more likely.

So I am in the camp Covid isn't as deadly as we are saying, but there are tons of long term effects camp, so I do think its a horrible virus.

That said it has to be CTE issues by far, I think we are just touching the surface the number of players with CTE. No evidence to back this up, not trying to start a fight with anyone, but honestly brining up CTE is an extremely valid and interesting point.
 
Agreed. That was my point.

Right, you quoted the current reality and didn't include the rest of the quote, which provides the context by which they're not allowed to earn money. They developed laws to strip them of their right to earn money of their own name, image and likeness.

That system is untenable, and must be rectified to stop denying economic rights to athletes. Given the hundreds of millions of dollars which are thrown around by sponsors, corporate investment and universities, I don't have any interest in deflecting to the prospect that athletic departments don't make enough money.

If they can't afford football, then the market will correct to someone who can.
 
That system is untenable, and must be rectified to stop denying economic rights to athletes....If they can't afford football, then the market will correct to someone who can.

The system as it exists is very tenable, and has been since college football first became a thing more than 150 years ago. I'm sure the NCAA and its member schools would be more than happy to continue it as is indefinitely.

But I assume you're talking about changing the current system so that schools are required to pay athletes wages, so I'm curious as to exactly what it is you are advocating. Are you saying that all college athletes must legally be classified as employees, and therefore entitled to minimum wage, payroll deductions, and have all the other laws applicable to employees apply to them as well? Just football players? And is it just that they all can get minimum wage, or would schools be able to pay them whatever they want?

Or am I wrong, and you don't want to change the law, but just think there should be a different, non-college league for those players who want to get paid?
 
Last edited:
The system as it exists is very tenable, and has been since college football first became a thing more than 150 years ago. I'm sure the NCAA and its member schools would be more than happy to continue it as is indefinitely.

If they're able to continue taking advantage of the nearly free labor of their athletes.

Given the recent political pressure to change that system, I think pretty much everyone understands that its not going to continue as is for much longer.


But I assume you're talking about changing the current system so that schools are required to pay athletes wages, so I'm curious as to exactly what it is you are advocating. Are you saying that all college athletes must legally be classified as employees, and therefore entitled to minimum wage, payroll deductions, and have all the other laws applicable to employees apply to them as well? Just football players? And is it just that they all can get minimum wage, or would schools be able to pay them whatever they want?

Or am I wrong, and you don't want to change the law, but just think there should be a different, non-college league for those players who want to get paid?

I'm not tying myself to any specific structure at this point, for what its worth.

Name, Image and Likeness should start the conversation, and would certainly be open to wages as well.
 
The system as it exists is very tenable, and has been since college football first became a thing more than 150 years ago. I'm sure the NCAA and its member schools would be more than happy to continue it as is indefinitely.

But I assume you're talking about changing the current system so that schools are required to pay athletes wages, so I'm curious as to exactly what it is you are advocating. Are you saying that all college athletes must legally be classified as employees, and therefore entitled to minimum wage, payroll deductions, and have all the other laws applicable to employees apply to them as well? Just football players? And is it just that they all can get minimum wage, or would schools be able to pay them whatever they want?

Or am I wrong, and you don't want to change the law, but just think there should be a different, non-college league for those players who want to get paid?

It really comes down to two types of players:

Players w/ Pro Career's coming (Pro aspirations)
Players w/o Pro Career's coming (Student Athletes)

The Pro players are getting a free education, pro level skills development, and a large showcase with which to improve their draft position and NFL readiness.
The Student Athletes are getting a free education.

Oddly, it's the group that wants to go Pro that is complaining. I don't like how the rules, be it Football, Basketball, whatever, that force adults into College Sports instead of having the option to go Pro. I think if someone wants to blow their amateur status and declare for the draft at 18, that's their choice. The picture they're painting to try and get paid is that they're being forced to go College because of the NFL's rules. It's not on the NCAA to right the NFL's wrongs though.

I'd love to see the NFL remove their age requirement. Let people who want to go Pro, go Pro. Let the schools continue to entertain actual Student Athletes. Quality of the College game might take a slight quality hit for a bit, but either there will be enough Kwame Brown type of failures that young kids won't get drafted high and find they need that College platform after all, or some new middle ground construct will arise to fill a need.

College fans are rabid for their team, not for players who in many cases are only there 2-3 years and gone. Their names matter because they were associated w/ success. The winning and losing will all be the same, just the names will be different.
 
What's worse than walls of text?

Walls of text off-topic lol.

Here's a short and sweet answer to the topic - YESSIR!
 
If they're able to continue taking advantage of the nearly free labor of their athletes. Given the recent political pressure to change that system, I think pretty much everyone understands that its not going to continue as is for much longer.

I'm not sure about that. It's easy for politicians to make generalizations that things need to change, but the problem comes when every proposed solution creates even worse problems. For example, a politician may rail against laws that specifically say student athletes who receive scholarships are not considered employees, claiming they are "unjust", and because they are "entitled" to a wage. The problem is that if you eliminate that law, every single student athlete now becomes entitled to minimum wage, and schools become liable for Obamacare penalties, workers comp, unemployment, etc. etc. etc.. The result of that would be mass elimination of athletic scholarships, which obviously benefits no-one.

I'm not tying myself to any specific structure at this point, for what its worth.

And I guess the desire to avoid troublesome specifics isn't limited just to politicians.

ame, Image and Likeness should start the conversation, and would certainly be open to wages as well.

You could permit athletes -- though it would only be the truly big name ones -- to profit off their likeness without turning students into employees.

But as soon as you change the law to define student athletes as employees entitled to wages, college athletics will be eliminated. All you'd see are self-financed club sports without scholarships. I don't think that result actually benefits anyone.
 
I'm not sure about that. It's easy for politicians to make generalizations that things need to change, but the problem comes when every proposed solution creates even worse problems. For example, a politician may rail against laws that specifically say student athletes who receive scholarships are not considered employees, claiming they are "unjust", and because they are "entitled" to a wage. The problem is that if you eliminate that law, every single student athlete now becomes entitled to minimum wage, and schools become liable for Obamacare penalties, workers comp, unemployment, etc. etc. etc.. The result of that would be mass elimination of athletic scholarships, which obviously benefits no-one.

The only thing that stands in the way of this is a relatively flimsy defense under Anti-Trust laws, which is a road I don't think the NCAA wants to go down.

Not only that, but when I refer to political pressure, I'm also referring to the Power 5 commissioners who seem more inclined to move to towards the Name, Image, Likeness rule changes that allow athletes to begin earning what they work for.

We can go round and round all day on this potential legal case, but for now I'm just going to argue for whats right. IMO, its nowhere near right for the NCAA and other stakeholders to continue getting massively rich off the labor of these kids.




And I guess the desire to avoid troublesome specifics isn't limited just to politicians.

This is a nice attack line, I'm sure if my position were set on a specific set of guidelines that must be met you'd accuse me of being too set and inflexible.

I'm not sure me being open to a variety of alternatives to rectify a problem is "troublesome," but hey...to each their own I guess.



You could permit athletes -- though it would only be the truly big name ones -- to profit off their likeness without turning students into employees.

But as soon as you change the law to define student athletes as employees entitled to wages, college athletics will be eliminated. All you'd see are self-financed club sports without scholarships. I don't think that result actually benefits anyone.

Holding "college athletics" as a hostage that will be eliminated if kids are granted the economic rights they're entitled to isn't a good faith discussion.

In fact, I'd argue its rooted in the same dictatorial control issues which allowed a system to freeze out the kids putting in the work in the first place.

Its simply not a good enough excuse any more. Having great collegiate athletics is beyond proven to have a positive impact on your university's brand, and with the market demanding collegiate athletics, the model is not in any danger of being eliminated.

What isn't being discussed enough is how schools will be able to further monetize their product by promoting athletics and the names, image and likeness of the kids who play for them. That means the Justin Fields of the world are likely to become exponentially more profitable to The Ohio State University, who can sell jerseys, t-shirts, bobbleheads and such with his name and jersey on it.

That ALONE would be better than the current system, but for whatever reason we seem to be ignoring that and assuming that everything would stay the same with regards to how athletic departments market their athletes.



Quite frankly, there doesn't appear to be a good faith argument that leads me to believe college athletic departments wouldn't accumulate a myriad of new income streams.
 
If they're able to continue taking advantage of the nearly free labor of their athletes.

Given the recent political pressure to change that system, I think pretty much everyone understands that its not going to continue as is for much longer.




I'm not tying myself to any specific structure at this point, for what its worth.

Name, Image and Likeness should start the conversation, and would certainly be open to wages as well.
I 100% agree on players being able to use their likeness and image to make money. The part is still struggle with is the pay to play part. I just wonder how the economics of it would work. The big time programs use a lot of the money to fund small programs. My biggest issue with starting to pay players is what happens to the programs who can’t turn a profit and you have cuts. Any money you would pay the players comes from the cut the schools already get. Unless there is a belief that tv contracts will get bigger if you pay players.
 
I 100% agree on players being able to use their likeness and image to make money. The part is still struggle with is the pay to play part. I just wonder how the economics of it would work. The big time programs use a lot of the money to fund small programs. My biggest issue with starting to pay players is what happens to the programs who can’t turn a profit and you have cuts. Any money you would pay the players comes from the cut the schools already get. Unless there is a belief that tv contracts will get bigger if you pay players.

If schools can't figure out how to monetize their athletes and drive more revenue to their universities, then I have little pity for them.

Generating more revenue through jersey sales, player appearances, sponsored activities that would all monetarily benefit the schools. But again, holding other sports hostage because of the NCAA's refusal to respect the economic rights of their players is not a good faith approach to figuring out an amicable solution.
 
If schools can't figure out how to monetize their athletes and drive more revenue to their universities, then I have little pity for them.

Generating more revenue through jersey sales, player appearances, sponsored activities that would all monetarily benefit the schools. But again, holding other sports hostage because of the NCAA's refusal to respect the economic rights of their players is not a good faith approach to figuring out an amicable solution.
If anything you can say the top athletes are helping fund the non top athletes for not getting paid. If anything it works, the top guys get to get experience before going pro, and pass on that goodwill to the sports/athletics who are able to play because of them. It is a lot like the tax system, the people at the top pay the most, and the people not at the top get the benefit.

I think letting player sell their own imagine and likeness is a the right next step. It allows the top players to make money, but it does not take money out of the schools budget that goes to support other programs. To me it is a win win.
 
I was hoping this conversation would stay a little truer to the topic of Covid-19, but everyone has been thoughtful and respectful of differing views. Speaking of the "money-maker" sports, I don't think it's fair to draw a parallel to taxation. Take a moment to read the fallout of Covid-19 budget changes to the Stanford athletic department:


This might be a school with extreme examples, but I believe you can learn a lot from the discontinued sports. Stanford is a school that has gotten into some trouble for maintaining a large endowment fund without using it to address the economic barriers to enrolling in the university.

Sports which are being cut are men’s and women’s fencing, field hockey, lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash, synchronized swimming, men’s volleyball and wrestling. I would make an argument that wrestling is indeed a sport that attracts a variety of economic classes, but overall those are "pay to play" sports for children of wealth. People often link Title IX and women's athletics from profits men's football and basketball generate, but there is a lot of deeply rooted "rich getting richer" in the athletic scholarships at many universities.

That also doesn't factor in club sports. My financial advisor loves talking about how he jumped through the hoops at his college to officially establish co-ed skiing as a club sports, which appropriated them a budget that they could spend on ski trips and all the partying that goes with it.

What I really hope here is that the shortfalls at the university level finally pushes better oversight on how funds are used. Money is the primary driving factor in university decisions on the level of safety precautions, and I'm definitely concerned over what is about to happen at many campuses before the vaccine is created.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top