- Oct 24, 2018
Good for these kids. Hopefully they get more players behind them.
What about athletes in non-revenue sports? You suggest football and basketball players should be compensated more since they bring in more revenue than they receive in tuition, board, stipends, tutors, food, facilities, etc. Tennis players and golfers cost the athletic department more than they create in revenue. So, do you think they shouldn't be given scholarships, and maybe even have to pay extra to play their sport? Either we're going for the all-in capitalist free-market approach, or we're not.This whole issue hinges on the fact that the scholarship and all of the other benefits that college football (and to a lesser extent basketball) players are being given does not equal that revenue that they generate for the institutions that they play for.
Since the explosion of the TV revenue in college sports starting in the 90s, and ballooning over the last 3 decades, the compensation that the players are receiving doesn't match up with what their hard work brings in. Meanwhile, coaching salaries and athletics department budgets have grown to absurd levels, to the point that in 40 states the highest paid government employee is a college football or basketball coach. (https://fanbuzz.com/national/highest-paid-state-employees/)
And not only are the players not compensated fairly for the value they bring, they assume a high degree of risk to do so. More and more information about CTE and long term brain injuries is coming to light every year. They risk life long joint and soft tissue damage. While not receiving anything for taking on that risk.
Many of these players also come from poorer, single income homes. Often these young men are responsible for putting food on the table, or helping to raise siblings before they go to college. And they are being asked to stop supporting their families for 4 years, and the only compensation is the potential of a degree at the end of that time. This is often where the dark money in college sports comes in. Sure, there are the bidding wars for the likes of Cam and Zion, but many times a guy just needs a few hundred dollars to help his mom keep the lights on at home for a few months. (https://www.bannersociety.com/2014/4/10/20703758/bag-man-paying-college-football-players)
That was all true before Covid. Now, the athletes are being asked to take on the additional risk of a potentially life-threatening or life-altering illness. One that also has the potential to take away the very scholarship that they are being asked to play for.
This is a labor dispute, just like teacher or auto workers strike. The disparity in value of labor versus the compensation offered has reached a critical point. Either the controlling powers offer more to the labor force, or the laborers must ban together and hit those in control by affecting the product being offered.
Imagine this scenario --Plain and simple. 99% of all college athletes aren't worth a cent individually. Sports media and talking heads only like to reference the Zion's of the world. When we should let them play professionally first. At the end of the day. Professional leagues are using college athletics as a training ground for these 1% athletes who will end up driving the ship
What, you don't think they want to spend that on some athletes....? Shocking.I have said this before, but there are plenty of universities out there that are basically large tax-free hedge funds with a small educational and athletics apparatus attached to them so they can notionally be a "nonprofit organization" on tax forms.
A couple of large religious organizations are running the same racket really, only their justification for nonprofit is a slightly different one than the above.
Yale could use an international airport.
(The newest large-scale international airport that I can think of in the United States is Denver International Airport, which was like $5 billion. So they can afford it.)
What incentive does a school have to lower tuition? None of the big schools are hurting.When someone brings up using the colleges endowment as a source for funds for athletics. You should immediately disregard everything they say until they educate themselves on what is an endowment and how those funds get appropriated.
Also, if you want to change the rules on how endowment funds are used. Athletics should be really **ckin low on the priority lists. I'd rather see lower tuition, addressing maintenance backlogs for exisiting properties, heavier investments into research. Using those funds to pay athletes is dumb..
Plain and simple. 99% of all college athletes aren't worth a cent individually. Sports media and talking heads only like to reference the Zion's of the world. When we should let them play professionally first. At the end of the day. Professional leagues are using college athletics as a training ground for these 1% athletes who will end up driving the ship
It's either the dawning of a new, and better era in college sports, or this is the death rattle of the golden goose.We thought 2024 was supposed to be the big year for the future of college athletics. But whatever comes out of 2020 may turn out to be far more consequential.
My somewhat more realistic solution: Take the $1.3B annual TV deal from the NCAA tournament and spread that across all 460,000 student athletes. That gives approximately $2,800 per student athlete per year in the NCAA. Add to that any future contract deals for video games or other likeness. Maybe phase this in over time to let conferences deal with the loss of revenue? But the point is that you provide a stipend to all athletes based on the revenue from the NCAA and not the ticket sales and conference TV deals that vary significantly from school to school.
Yes, sports like golf, tennis, gymnastics, wrestling, etc. all cost the athletics departments more money than they bring in. And if given the opportunity, I wholeheartedly believe there are administrators who would happily cut those sports if they were allowed to. But in order to be eligible as a D1, the school must have 14 scholarship sports: 7 mens and 7 womens, or 6 mens and 8 womens. Of those at least 2 of them must be team sports for each gender.What about athletes in non-revenue sports? You suggest football and basketball players should be compensated more since they bring in more revenue than they receive in tuition, board, stipends, tutors, food, facilities, etc. Tennis players and golfers cost the athletic department more than they create in revenue. So, do you think they shouldn't be given scholarships, and maybe even have to pay extra to play their sport? Either we're going for the all-in capitalist free-market approach, or we're not.
Devil's advocate: So why do they sign the LOI's if they're being exploited? For 98% of student athletes, they're getting more benefit than they're bringing in TV and gate revenue. For the other 2%, they're getting exploited by the collective bargaining agreements in the NBA and NFL, not the NCAA.Meanwhile I see a bunch greedy TV execs and college administrators who are exploiting the labor of young men for their own personal benefit.