From the Olympic sports POV, I typically call it a unique strength of the American University system that there is such a thing as collegiate sports. In Europe and other countries, the pro sports and academics are distinctly separate and many athletes never got the chance to learn until after their sports career is over.
I think it is a positive that some of the top student-athletes are drawn to the US because of collegiate sports (because immigration, particularly of talent, is good). Of course, there have been arguments to the contrary, particularly those who believe that those rare non-revenue sports scholarships should be going to Americans. The two concepts are obviously not mutually exclusive but there is some conflicts there.
And Nick, I'd rather kill college football than turn it pro. I have always advocated for larger stipends for student athletes on scholarships, and that means all athletes, not just football players. But paying players would completely destroy the college game as we know it. Players would o where the would be paid the most. Dynasties would be built on who is willing to pay the most for player salaries for a winning program. Would there be rooking contracts like in the NFL? Would there be a salary cap? Would kids even need to go to class? If they are being paid, why should they? Lots of unanswered questions. Kids play ball in college for two reasons: to get a free education and diploma, and to have a shot at going pro. If they want to get paid there are plenty of semi-pro leagues around and they won't need to go to class.
What's unfair? No one if forcing these kids to stay. It's not a monopoly and the benefits to the student athlete range between $50k to $100k per year. That's pretty good for an 18 to 21 year old.
Nick, thanks for your many thoughtful posts on the topic of the NCAA. Really appreciate how well you articulate the salient issues.
COVID seems to be hastening a lot of paradigm shifts in our society and culture that were nascent before the pandemic, and this is another one that (to me) is unexpected but also welcome - despite the uncertainty that comes with it.
I respect the criticism of the NCAA, but I think it's worth noting the NCAA doesn't earn much, if anything, from college football. Instead, the NCAA earns most of its money from March Madness.
College football is fairly independent. The College Football Playoff is separate from the NCAA, and it's the conferences and schools that negotiate, earn and receive the blockbuster TV broadcasting revenues. The schools also pocket money on their own from merchandising and ticket sales.
The more I read about college athletics around the time of the founding of the NCAA, the more cynical I become regarding the "founding ethics" and moral purity of the sport. Via just one wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateurism_in_the_NCAA):
"In 1929, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching published one of the first comprehensive studies on the tensions between amateurism and the economics of college athletics. The Carnegie report analyzed 112 college athletic programs, noting the threats that commercialism posed to the integrity of sport and the role of amateurism.[7] Furthermore, it traced the roots of profit all the way back to 1880, in which the first ticket sales were recorded: "charges for admission to football contests advanced in some instances to $1.50...special financial support began to be solicited from alumni. One result was that alumni who made generous contributions to college athletics received, openly or covertly, in return, a generous share in their control".[7]"
The incentives are now too great to ever divorce profits from major college-sponsored football (and basketball) teams. I think you can draw a direct line between the popularity of a sport and the degree of professionalism that exists within that sport, and the NCAA's concept of a "student-athlete" is just a sham meant to obscure that relationship. The only way we can get back to truly amateur athletics on campus is for those sports to become much, much less popular.
I'm proud of these kids spearheading this campaign, challenging the system, finding their voices and seizing the moment! It appears, a lot of folks are focused on "Fair Market Pay", however, I see this as a bargaining chip. The kids understand that all of their demands will not be met. Re. $$ The bigger issue is "NIL" & how the NCAA has continued to skirt around this issue. The majority of athletes won't make the pros and many come from impoverished communities where sports is a means of escaping poverty. Some will have long lasting physical ailments including CTE from playing football. Many don't & won't have adequate health care. In the spirit of UC Berkeley, this will be the ripple effect that changes collegiate sports as we know it & I'm proud that it started here at Cal! Regardless of the outcome...the players have already won! https://www.si.com/college/florida/football/florida-gators-zachary-carter-ncaa-coronavirus-blm-student-athletes
I'm certain the majority of both professional & collegiate athletes are supportive!
Evan Weaver, Great to see these PAC 12 athletes take a stand! Ridiculous they have to ask for these things! #WeAreUnited
It's fine to debate what are largely academic issues like what unfettered player payments would do to the competitive landscape of college athletics (spoiler alert: the answer is "nothing that hasn't already happened in the current system") and the concept of amateurism as a whole, but setting aside the 50% revenue issue and schools using their endowments to fund non-revenue generating sports (some schools simply cannot, which doesn't make Stanford's decision to can dozens of sports while sitting on nearly $30 billion any less shameful), is there another of the players' demands that people have an issue with? Safety concerns in the pandemic, economic freedom with respect to their own name and likeness, freedom of speech and due process, health insurance for sports-related conditions after graduation.
The fact that student-athletes have to demand what most of what would consider to be pretty fundamental stuff shouldn't be lost in the noise of whether playing players helps or hurts Cal or any other school in the race for a national championship that one of like 10 schools is going to win regardless.
So Nick, you posit that if they play during the pandemic, that proves that college football is professional. Is the converse also true? If they cancel the season, does that prove it's amateur?
As with anything there are two sides to every issue. I'm not going to dig deep on this one. All I am going to say is everyone has a right to peaceful protest. These kids should follow their beliefs. Sadly, I don't think this was well thought out because I don't see 100 players changing the direction of the PAC12 or NCAA, especially before camp starts and the season starts. If they sit out, another player will fill the role. If they return, then they have given up bargaining power. The season will happen, with or without them.
You're arguing for college athletics to become more professional. I would like it to go the other direction and have student athletes who compete primarily for the love of their sport and their university. There are many sports that currently operate this way, and they are a credit to the University of California.
While I hope the Pac-12 and NCAA accede to some of the players' demands, it is going to be hard to implement the compensation system for players given some of the pitfalls and issues mentioned by Rugbear. The only thing I can think of is a baseline stipend offered to all players, which would be a fixed rate set by the NCAA. If it is not a fixed rate but allowed to be variable then Cal has no chance of competing with the traditional football powers. Hard to see how this could be more than $1000-2000 per month. The demand for 50% of revenues is unrealistic. Some of the other demands could be met however, without irrevocably changing college football.
From the Olympic sports POV, I typically call it a unique strength of the American University system that there is such a thing as collegiate sports. In Europe and other countries, the pro sports and academics are distinctly separate and many athletes never got the chance to learn until after their sports career is over.
I think it is a positive that some of the top student-athletes are drawn to the US because of collegiate sports (because immigration, particularly of talent, is good). Of course, there have been arguments to the contrary, particularly those who believe that those rare non-revenue sports scholarships should be going to Americans. The two concepts are obviously not mutually exclusive but there is some conflicts there.
And Nick, I'd rather kill college football than turn it pro. I have always advocated for larger stipends for student athletes on scholarships, and that means all athletes, not just football players. But paying players would completely destroy the college game as we know it. Players would o where the would be paid the most. Dynasties would be built on who is willing to pay the most for player salaries for a winning program. Would there be rooking contracts like in the NFL? Would there be a salary cap? Would kids even need to go to class? If they are being paid, why should they? Lots of unanswered questions. Kids play ball in college for two reasons: to get a free education and diploma, and to have a shot at going pro. If they want to get paid there are plenty of semi-pro leagues around and they won't need to go to class.
What's unfair? No one if forcing these kids to stay. It's not a monopoly and the benefits to the student athlete range between $50k to $100k per year. That's pretty good for an 18 to 21 year old.
Nick, thanks for your many thoughtful posts on the topic of the NCAA. Really appreciate how well you articulate the salient issues.
COVID seems to be hastening a lot of paradigm shifts in our society and culture that were nascent before the pandemic, and this is another one that (to me) is unexpected but also welcome - despite the uncertainty that comes with it.
I respect the criticism of the NCAA, but I think it's worth noting the NCAA doesn't earn much, if anything, from college football. Instead, the NCAA earns most of its money from March Madness.
College football is fairly independent. The College Football Playoff is separate from the NCAA, and it's the conferences and schools that negotiate, earn and receive the blockbuster TV broadcasting revenues. The schools also pocket money on their own from merchandising and ticket sales.
The more I read about college athletics around the time of the founding of the NCAA, the more cynical I become regarding the "founding ethics" and moral purity of the sport. Via just one wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateurism_in_the_NCAA):
"In 1929, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching published one of the first comprehensive studies on the tensions between amateurism and the economics of college athletics. The Carnegie report analyzed 112 college athletic programs, noting the threats that commercialism posed to the integrity of sport and the role of amateurism.[7] Furthermore, it traced the roots of profit all the way back to 1880, in which the first ticket sales were recorded: "charges for admission to football contests advanced in some instances to $1.50...special financial support began to be solicited from alumni. One result was that alumni who made generous contributions to college athletics received, openly or covertly, in return, a generous share in their control".[7]"
The incentives are now too great to ever divorce profits from major college-sponsored football (and basketball) teams. I think you can draw a direct line between the popularity of a sport and the degree of professionalism that exists within that sport, and the NCAA's concept of a "student-athlete" is just a sham meant to obscure that relationship. The only way we can get back to truly amateur athletics on campus is for those sports to become much, much less popular.
Nobody is forcing the kids to play football. If you don't want to play then don't. But then pay for your college like the rest of us.
I'm proud of these kids spearheading this campaign, challenging the system, finding their voices and seizing the moment! It appears, a lot of folks are focused on "Fair Market Pay", however, I see this as a bargaining chip. The kids understand that all of their demands will not be met. Re. $$ The bigger issue is "NIL" & how the NCAA has continued to skirt around this issue. The majority of athletes won't make the pros and many come from impoverished communities where sports is a means of escaping poverty. Some will have long lasting physical ailments including CTE from playing football. Many don't & won't have adequate health care. In the spirit of UC Berkeley, this will be the ripple effect that changes collegiate sports as we know it & I'm proud that it started here at Cal! Regardless of the outcome...the players have already won! https://www.si.com/college/florida/football/florida-gators-zachary-carter-ncaa-coronavirus-blm-student-athletes
I'm certain the majority of both professional & collegiate athletes are supportive!
Evan Weaver, Great to see these PAC 12 athletes take a stand! Ridiculous they have to ask for these things! #WeAreUnited
https://gfycat.com/unacceptabletensedoctorfish
It's fine to debate what are largely academic issues like what unfettered player payments would do to the competitive landscape of college athletics (spoiler alert: the answer is "nothing that hasn't already happened in the current system") and the concept of amateurism as a whole, but setting aside the 50% revenue issue and schools using their endowments to fund non-revenue generating sports (some schools simply cannot, which doesn't make Stanford's decision to can dozens of sports while sitting on nearly $30 billion any less shameful), is there another of the players' demands that people have an issue with? Safety concerns in the pandemic, economic freedom with respect to their own name and likeness, freedom of speech and due process, health insurance for sports-related conditions after graduation.
The fact that student-athletes have to demand what most of what would consider to be pretty fundamental stuff shouldn't be lost in the noise of whether playing players helps or hurts Cal or any other school in the race for a national championship that one of like 10 schools is going to win regardless.
So Nick, you posit that if they play during the pandemic, that proves that college football is professional. Is the converse also true? If they cancel the season, does that prove it's amateur?
As with anything there are two sides to every issue. I'm not going to dig deep on this one. All I am going to say is everyone has a right to peaceful protest. These kids should follow their beliefs. Sadly, I don't think this was well thought out because I don't see 100 players changing the direction of the PAC12 or NCAA, especially before camp starts and the season starts. If they sit out, another player will fill the role. If they return, then they have given up bargaining power. The season will happen, with or without them.
You're arguing for college athletics to become more professional. I would like it to go the other direction and have student athletes who compete primarily for the love of their sport and their university. There are many sports that currently operate this way, and they are a credit to the University of California.
While I hope the Pac-12 and NCAA accede to some of the players' demands, it is going to be hard to implement the compensation system for players given some of the pitfalls and issues mentioned by Rugbear. The only thing I can think of is a baseline stipend offered to all players, which would be a fixed rate set by the NCAA. If it is not a fixed rate but allowed to be variable then Cal has no chance of competing with the traditional football powers. Hard to see how this could be more than $1000-2000 per month. The demand for 50% of revenues is unrealistic. Some of the other demands could be met however, without irrevocably changing college football.