Unionization of the NCAA

[Cratylus]

Strange. I thought boosters were already paying the players.

 

[The Oi]

Strange. I thought boosters were already paying the players.

:chuckles:

That's the other thing...

 

[MRMsix6]

I think a lot of people are missing the point.

The NCAA is a multibillion dollar industry. Why shouldn't the athletes be paid relative to their production. If so much money is being made from people who are effectively working 50-60 hours a week; why should the NCAA be exempt from paying their salary.

If college athletes are paid relative to their production, measured as income generated, the vast majority of college athletes aren't going to be making anything, and a lot of them would likely just be cut. Most non-football/basketball programs lose money and are subsidized by the major sports. For most college athletes a scholarship is worth far more than how much they would theoretically be paid based on how much they produce.

The reality is that only a handful of players at big time schools aren't being adequately compensated based on the market. You'd have Johnny Manziel making a few million bucks and 90% of the women's sports being cut because the extra funds generated by profit-generating sports are now staying within those sports to pay the athletes. If you want a more equitable system like that, fine, but it can't happen without taking away a lot of funds for other sports.

Here's just one example from Michigan:

It's no secret that football is the real money maker in University of Michigan athletics.

But exactly how much revenue do the roughly 100 students and 20 coaches and staff in the program bring in?

$82 million.

Football accounted for at least 57 percent of athletic department revenues in 2012-13, which totaled $144 million, according to Michigan budget documents provided to the Board of Regents.

The storied program and its larger-than-life venue are what solidifies Michigan's place among the most profitable enterprises in college sports. Football cost about $23 million to operate in 2012-13, meaning it fed more than $58 million into Michigan's other 30 varsity teams.

The $82 million haul doesn't count indirect revenues, such as sponsorships, licensing and advertising agreements — which totaled $22.5 million that year — primarily made attractive by the football and basketball programs.

"It's extremely important," athletic director Dave Brandon said of the football program.

"All of the facilities and coaches and the infrastructure required to have 31 teams fundamentally all gets paid for by two programs: basketball and football," he continued. "Those revenues are the reason why we can have so many teams competing in so many activities and have a really broad-based program.

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2014/03/wolverine_football_carries_uni.html

In other words, there's not enough talk about where all this college athletics money is going and who it is helping. Yes, administrative, coaching and NCAA head honcho salaries are sky-rocketing, but the largest benefactors of the profits of NCAA sports are the sports we don't watch on TV. They will be the ones hardest hit if college athletes are going to become salaried employees.

As for the 50-60 hours a week mark, I don't know where you came up with that. I found a survey from 2008 that showed football players the highest among athletes at just under 45 hours. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-01-12-athletes-full-time-work-study_N.htm) Those are still full-time job numbers, but 50-60 seemed high to me.

 

[Stitches]

I'm 32 years old, pretty successful in my career, and I'm still paying on my student loans. I think the value of the scholarships given are always understated in this debate.

My solution is this - give the athletes a choice - either take the full, paid scholarship or get paid the equal value of said scholarship (given as a bi-weekly paycheck) and allow them to take student loans out to cover their own education. If they feel they'll eventually go pro, they'll have plenty of cash while they attend school and can repay their own loans with the money they make professionally.

We all get taken advantages by bigger entities. If you work at First Energy, for example, your work is allowing them to makes millions and millions of dollars. Sure, you're being compensated, but are you getting the same share the head honchos up top are getting? My guess is no.

I'm in favor of giving them the option I mentioned and do believe they should have health care benefits, but that's it. Paying them AND giving them a full ride is too much. For as much as people talk about them getting taken advantage of, never forget their participation is OPTIONAL. Basketball players can forego college for the D-League or European Leagues if they don't want to go to college. Although it's not as good, football players have the option of the CFL if they don't want to attend school. If they're good enough, they'll still find their way into the pros.

One final point - unionization can't just be for the money-making sports of college football and basketball. Due to Title IX the benefits have to also be there for athletes participating in women's basketball, softball, baseball, swimming, track and field, etc etc etc. Unionize and watch colleges just start to axe sports programs left and right.

90-95% of collegiate athletes will never go pro and need the education they receive to be successful in their lives. Let's not jeopardize that for the 5-10% star athletes whose work that's taken advantage of leapfrogs them to millions of dollars.

This is my solution as well. Give them all the money it would cost for tuition, food & board, health coverage (offer employee insurance that they can elect to buy), and transportation, etc. that is associated with a scholarship, or they can choose the traditional athletic scholarship. See how they like securing and paying back student loans, setting up their own travel arrangements, health care options, living arrangements, and money management associated with being paid every two weeks like the majority of college students who also work while attending school.

 

[CornerThree]

Athletes can take student loans and may be eligible for pell grants. Some of the dumb things are the job restrictions they face. Also until very recently meals were restricted.

 

[MattyFos.]

They should get a cut of jersey sales, video games and autographs. Plain and simple. Someone is willing to pay for a number 2 OSU jersey, a Terrell Pryor jersey or autograph or a video game using these kids likeness.... Most of that money (every single cent of autograph not going to charity) should line these kids pockets before going to profits.

This stuff should have been in place years ago.... decades ago.

 

[gourimoko]

They should get a cut of jersey sales, video games and autographs. Plain and simple. Someone is willing to pay for a number 2 OSU jersey, a Terrell Pryor jersey or autograph or a video game using these kids likeness.... Most of that money (every single cent of autograph not going to charity) should line these kids pockets before going to profits.

This stuff should have been in place years ago.... decades ago.

I tend to agree.

The most pressing argument I've seen from MRM and Jigo seems to be that only a small minority of athletes are worth paying to see, and this would have a destabilizing effect on the rest of the NCAA.

Then perhaps those few players should be in a separate league or division? Perhaps they should have sports agents that figure out their value and negotiate it with the NCAA teams/schools directly. Rather than looking at them as students first, perhaps they should be looked at as athletes first?

It isn't too hard to envision a dual-system being put in place, where there is the status quo for the majority of athletes, and an opt-in program for athletes who feel they can and should be monetizing their efforts.

Because the system, as it is now, simply is exploitive. I understand it seems complex to fix it and I'm probably not the best person to speak about how, but what I do recognize is that there is a multi-billion dollar industry that's been created, for-profit, on the backs of these students. So to say, well their education is enough; eh, that's bullshit. My undergrad education was very expensive (CWRU), so I understand the expenses, but they are in no way fair compensation for a team that generates millions of dollars in revenue.

 

[Scholar]

I tend to agree.

The most pressing argument I've seen from MRM and Jigo seems to be that only a small minority of athletes are worth paying to see, and this would have a destabilizing effect on the rest of the NCAA.

Then perhaps those few players should be in a separate league or division? Perhaps they should have sports agents that figure out their value and negotiate it with the NCAA teams/schools directly. Rather than looking at them as students first, perhaps they should be looked at as athletes first?

It isn't too hard to envision a dual-system being put in place, where there is the status quo for the majority of athletes, and an opt-in program for athletes who feel they can and should be monetizing their efforts.

Because the system, as it is now, simply is exploitive. I understand it seems complex to fix it and I'm probably not the best person to speak about how, but what I do recognize is that there is a multi-billion dollar industry that's been created, for-profit, on the backs of these students. So to say, well their education is enough; eh, that's bullshit. My undergrad education was very expensive (CWRU), so I understand the expenses, but they are in no way fair compensation for a team that generates millions of dollars in revenue.

Gouri, there are some things that you are overlooking in all of this. Those jerseys that are high sales are most likely from the offensive skilled positions and a few stand out defensive players. How many linemen jerseys do you expect to be at the top of the sales figures? Also, those jerseys are being sold because those players are playing for high profile college teams. They are getting the exposure created by playing for those teams that lead to those sales. The fact that they are say the QB for Ohio State, Texas, or Florida State has a direct correlation to those sales. If that same player was attending some much smaller university, the subsequent sales would be much smaller.

 

[Maximus]

They should get a cut of jersey sales, video games and autographs. Plain and simple. Someone is willing to pay for a number 2 OSU jersey, a Terrell Pryor jersey or autograph or a video game using these kids likeness.... Most of that money (every single cent of autograph not going to charity) should line these kids pockets before going to profits.

This stuff should have been in place years ago.... decades ago.

If you allow players to get paid for autographs, you've given boosters a legal way to bid an pay for players. Hey Jimmy, if you come play at State, we have 20 friends of the program that will buy 20 of your autographed jock straps for $100,000 each the day you sign.

 

[RonG]

For the longest time I thought once a kid was awarded a scholarship they had it unless the failed out academically or were dismissed over behavior. The fact is if you get hurt they can pull your scholarship and award it to someone else. I think the whole system needs an overhaul. To be quiet honest I don't think it should even make a profit and what profit made should go back into the education system. The NCAA system is a complete joke, it exploits these kids to no end.

 

[gourimoko]

Gouri, there are some things that you are overlooking in all of this. Those jerseys that are high sales are most likely from the offensive skilled positions and a few stand out defensive players. How many linemen jerseys do you expect to be at the top of the sales figures?

I get that, I dunno if I made it clear in my original post and that's probably my fault but, I'm failing to understand why there should be parity in sales?

I don't understand why fairness in pay across positions is as important as fairness in pay with respect to production. If a quarterback is more popular than a linebacker then why should the linebacker be paid anywhere near as much?

I might be missing something here, but I think that makes sense?

Also, those jerseys are being sold because those players are playing for high profile college teams.

Is it the team or the player?

They are getting the exposure created by playing for those teams that lead to those sales. The fact that they are say the QB for Ohio State, Texas, or Florida State has a direct correlation to those sales.

Eh.. I tend to believe that those individual players' performance has more to do with jersey sales than the institution in which their at. By this logic, any joe schmoe could be put in the starting line up and be expected to have nominal sales.

I don't think that's the case, do you?

If that same player was attending some much smaller university, the subsequent sales would be much smaller.

Again, the system could be transformed into a minor league where people would still watch regional teams play. It's more about where you're from than what school you are attending. I know plenty of Alabama fans who never attended the school (most of them that I know are in the military and never went to college). I support OSU and have OSU gear but I'm a Case graduate.

I think it's regional rather than based on the institution. A successful team in a well-structured league could generate ample sales. Would the profits of the NCAA diminish? Probably.

I think what's being lost here is the right of the players to fair compensation. No matter how many jerseys are sold, the players have a right to fair compensation. We can argue what the most optimal solution is for the NCAA, but if it doesn't include that prerequisite, I find it hard to ethically justify it.

Grown adults who are generating wealth in a for-profit institution should be paid for their work. Don't you think so?

 

[gourimoko]

For the longest time I thought once a kid was awarded a scholarship they had it unless the failed out academically or were dismissed over behavior. The fact is if you get hurt they can pull your scholarship and award it to someone else. I think the whole system needs an overhaul. To be quiet honest I don't think it should even make a profit and what profit made should go back into the education system. The NCAA system is a complete joke, it exploits these kids to no end.

That's really what we're talking about here..

This just comes off as extreme exploitation to me. They really need a collective bargaining agreement, I think, that hammers out all of these issues and compensates the players for their play. It might not be like the NFL (which I too think is exploitative), but a hybrid model would be ideal.

Honestly, I think having a minor league would probably work best. Players who are angling to go to the NFL/NBA probably should be playing there rather than amongst lesser quality opponents anyway. It'd be better for the sport and the players -- especially with regards to the NBA.

 

[gourimoko]

If you allow players to get paid for autographs, you've given boosters a legal way to bid an pay for players. Hey Jimmy, if you come play at State, we have 20 friends of the program that will buy 20 of your autographed jock straps for $100,000 each the day you sign.

Honest question: what's wrong with that? On a basic level? "Jimmy, we'll pay you $2M to play at OSU? C'mon.." Is that really a bad thing?

 

[The Oi]

Honest question: what's wrong with that? On a basic level? "Jimmy, we'll pay you $2M to play at OSU? C'mon.." Is that really a bad thing?

As I mentioned before, you're going to SIGNIFICANTLY increase the talent gap between the top programs and the current middle tiered programs. These NCAA tourney runs by mid-major teams are completely out of the question when these small schools don't have enough boosters to afford the full rosters of superstar quality guys that schools with huge alumni groups can afford.

Again...can Davidson and Florida Gulf Coast and schools with tiny alumni groups afford to compete anymore? And when all of these mid-major teams get shitty and stop competing, are they going to sell enough tickets and merch to stay viable?

You're essentially turning college sports into the flawed and terrible current MLB.

Is it worth it to pay the players $2m when overnight you've eliminated a huge amount of teams from any sort of contention whatsoever?

 

[gourimoko]

As I mentioned before, you're going to SIGNIFICANTLY increase the talent gap between the top programs and the current middle tiered programs. These NCAA tourney runs by mid-major teams are completely out of the question when these small schools don't have enough boosters to afford the full rosters of superstar quality guys that schools with huge alumni groups can afford.

But again, Jigo, I don't understand how hoping to achieve parity for the sport overshadows the ethical dilemma of the players not getting paid?

If the sport suffers, then so be it. But having guys play for miniscule amounts of money while an organization makes billions is exploitative, don't you think?

Again...can Davidson and Florida Gulf Coast and schools with tiny alumni groups afford to compete anymore? And when all of these mid-major teams get shitty and stop competing, are they going to sell enough tickets and merch to stay viable?

But does that give them the right to exploit the players? As of now, NCAA players are being told, you cannot take a negotiable salary because the association and the school need the profits. But again, is that really necessary?

You're essentially turning college sports into the flawed and terrible current MLB.

Again, I think this is somewhat beside the point, honestly. The larger issue is with the exploitative practices of the NCAA, not the betterment of college football and basketball.

I also disagree with the notion that a basketball minor league would be bad for college basketball. For someone like me, it would make it actually watchable. I'd enjoy seeing highly competitive and highly skilled players play in a league, rather than average joes fumbling around the court. I don't really care for college ball unless I'm watching it to scout a player for the NBA.

Is it worth it to pay the players $2m when overnight you've eliminated a huge amount of teams from any sort of contention whatsoever?

I think so, yes. Again, if that player is worth $2m to that franchise, why is he not being paid? For team parity? If that's the case then his form a draft, union, and a collective bargaining agreement to parse these players among the teams.