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.
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?
Even if the season were cancelled, I think there's a mountain of evidence that players are closer to professional in the nature of their responsibilities (and the revenue they create) than amateur. But for me, what the pandemic has done is blow away that last little fig leaf of deniability or naivete somebody could bring into the debate.
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.
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.
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.
The 50% revenue distribution would be devastating for Olympic sports. As written, the demand reads "of each sport’s total conference revenue evenly among athletes in their respective sports."
Many of the Olympic sports run deficits with multi-million-dollar expenses on less than $1 million in revenue. They wouldn't be able to rely on or share in the revenues of more profitable "revenue" sports as they do now and would see their already-high expenses balloon.
I dont know if people actually do the math, I know I havent, but of the total revenue of around 1 billion a year the NCCA pays a significant portion back out to the colleges (I've casually seen different numbers but the lowest was 50%). So of whatever is remaining..how is it distributed to the ~450k student athletes? Does a 5* 3yr starter QB make as much as a unranked O lineman who plays a handful of games in 4 or 5 years? Or a sprinter? Tennis player? Does mens and womens sports change pay scales due to differences in revenue generated?
It's worth noting that the ~billion dollars of annual revenue for the NCAA doesn't touch on revenue paid to conferences and individual institutions. Total annual revenue sources for just college football is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 billion
That's a pretty blithe way to wave off some very real concerns. Besides, I'd argue that players may feel that they are being forced to play football *in a pandemic,* or else risk angering their coaches.
I agree, but apparently that's not a popular opinion these days. It scares me when people make comparisons to slavery when talking about college sports...
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.
"Players would o where the would be paid the most."
They already do.
"Dynasties would be built on who is willing to pay the most for player salaries for a winning program."
They already are.
Here's the deal: I simply can't understand somebody who is OK with college coaches making huge salaries, but not OK with college athletes getting compensated for their direct labor,
Simple: the coaches are the best of the best. Just like NFL players, the best ones get paid the most. The coaches are not students. Also, coaches don't have much of a life outside coaching. I coached at the JC level for 4 years. I thought it was going to be a fun hobby. It was, but it was a hobby that took 50 hours a week, year round (yes, there is spring ball, offseason workouts to run, and lots and lots of film to watch) and it could have been 80+ hours if I wanted to commit to it. In any event, Coaches are professional and the best should get paid the most; the market dictates price. Like I said, if players want to get paid, there are options outside of college ball that they can pursue. Lastly, if you figure that Tuition, Books and Board cost between $50k to $100k nowadays, that's a pretty decent pay package. Like I said though, I would like to see stipends increased so the kids can buy clothes and fly home for holidays if they are from out of town.
A couple of more thoughts... What happens if a star player who is paid top dollar has an off year? Do you cut his salary? What happens if he loses his starting job? Can you cut his salary? Can you pay his replacement more money? How do you handle a kid who has a breakout year and then decides to transfer because he can get more money at another program? How do you set salary amounts? How do you do it without creating dissention on the team? When guys are a collective of paid players looking out for their own interests they cease to function as team in the trust sense of the word. When all kids are on competing the same level, sacrificing EQUALLY to succeed, that's when the greatest bonds of a real team are formed.
"What happens if a star player who is paid top dollar has an off year? Do you cut his salary? What happens if he loses his starting job? Can you cut his salary? Can you pay his replacement more money? How do you handle a kid who has a breakout year and then decides to transfer because he can get more money at another program? How do you set salary amounts? How do you do it without creating dissention on the team?"
If you were to ask me to prognosticate the likely end result of all this, I'd guess that the intial negotiating position (50% of revenue) gets negotiated down to a universal stipend and name-and-likeness right. I doubt these hypotheticals end up needing to get answered. But honestly, most of these questions have easy answers. Players already transfer to other programs for monetary reasons, whether under the table or because of increased future opportunity. Coaches already have to deal with dissention on a roster, and Pro leagues handle different salaries just fine.
I agree fully with both of your posts and have the same concerns. Anyone who thinks Cal will be better off in the world of professional college sports is really fantasizing. The traditional big name schools will dominate pro sports and pull away from the others.
"The traditional big name schools will dominate pro sports and pull away from the others."
Regarding this argument: That problem has already come to pass. Four teams (Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, and Ohio State) have combined for 17 college football playoff appearances, while the rest of the country has a total of 7.
Yup. All of this might be AWFUL for Cal, because we're one of the few P5 institutions not drowning in money thanks to our own fiscal mistakes. But that shouldn't preclude us from recognizing and fixing an unfair system.
I heavily agree with rugbear, people also always focus on the two big revenue sports and ignore the rest. Who's getting paid there? I mean fairness means every student athlete should get something. But how do you determine what a golfer gets paid vs a swimmer? Who's paying for all this? So is this something that's good for a small number of student athletes, or all ~400,000 -500,000 athletes across all sports? Also youd have to wage adjust regularly, who determines that? Do you adjust for cost of living, even though on scholarship they dont pay rent?
This is also ignoring if you pay students outright, theyll just go to the biggest $$ schools (as rugbear said) and itll make it so MANY schools are uncompetitive. Which means less people will watch, and less revenue. It's hard enough to get people at pac12 games as is these days. Lol
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.
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.
If you go to the NCAA museum in Indianapolis, they claimed their origin as one that saved lives because the game of football was literally killing people due to "the wedge" (which was like the Mighty Ducks' 'Flying V'). Obviously, it's mission had changed quite a bit due to the vast increase in profits. Nonetheless, there is still room for an oversight organization even if college football becomes a hybrid amateur/professional organization. Should players be getting paid, it is not going to be a free-market system...there will be some kind of salary cap, max (if not uniform) salaries, etc.). Somebody will need to be an overwatch of all that.
I've stopped thinking of "professionalism" as a binary state, where one is either a professional or an amateur. Obviously most people are amateurs, and some are obviously clearly professionals, but in between there is a sliding scale of professionalism that ramps up as attention and money are paid to the sport. Most high school basketball tickets may be just supplementing the money necessary to outfit the team, pay coaches, support facilities, etc., but as school teams start generating significant revenue, that revenue starts to alter the business model of the whole enterprise, driving expectations for behavior that increasingly look like scaled-down versions of what we put on professional athletes.
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.
If we are talking about football and basketball at the Power 5 level, college athletics are already professional -- it just doesn't compensate the people who bring the most value to the process. The Alabama coaching staff collectively earns more than $15M per year -- even under the most generous estimates, that is several times the value of the scholarships, room, board, etc. given to the entire team on an annual basis. Coaches, administrators, NCAA officials, etc. should not be collectively making billions on the backs of players who are prohibited from receiving compensation for even just their own name and likeness. Setting the compensation issue aside, the hypocrisy of schools playing football while their students attend virtual classes for their own safety is just gross.
I can't say enough good things about college sports. I played basketball at a non-scholarship school before attending grad school at Cal, and it was an incredibly positive and important experience for me in terms of my development as a person, career, family and lifelong friendships. But what the NCAA and these schools are doing to players is wrong, and if this prompts change, then I'm all for it, even though it's unlikely they will get everything they are asking for. And, I'm very proud that Cal student-athletes are front and center on this effort. Kudos to those guys.
And that coaching staff that gets paid that much built a program that nets Alabama typically $50m+per year and because of that program the popularity of the University has grown and AP admits have grown from 15% to 70% of the student body. Tuition rates have gone up as well; that could be argued as good or bad, but more money means the University can offer more. As I said earlier, there are always two sides. Btw, there is a great story about how Bill Battle, the former AD, built the Alabama brand and the model of modern day big money football. Every school that wants to make money with a competitive program follows this model.
"And that coaching staff that gets paid that much built a program"
I don't particularly blame Alabama's coaches for profiting off of their own success to the maximum extent possible, but why do so many people get so angry when college athletes attempt to do the exact same thing?
Because college athletes aren't career professionals where market forces dictate pay levels. As I said earlier, if players want to get paid, there are options outside of college football that can get them paid and scouted for the NFL.
"options outside of college" -- Is that really true though? Aside from a handful of international players, has there even been a single NFL player in modern history who did not play a college sport at some point prior to their professional career?
I think this market inefficiency is the crux of the problem. Let the NCAA be amateur, but barriers to a *viable* professional option for some of these working aged young men need to be removed, and that starts with their partnership with the NFL (who actively engage in age discrimination nonetheless)
First of all, the Universities are not employers of football players. Second, college football is not a monopoly, players have options. As long as a choice exists then players can choose to accept the terms of the college scholarship deal or go elsewhere. In the workforce if you feel you are in an unfair situation you have the ability to seek a new place of employment. It is no different here. Terms are offered. You can accept or go elsewhere.
As much as pure amateurism is the platonic ideal, it's unrealistic as long as individuals and institutions are massively profiting off the play of college players. That's pretty impossible to change. But if players are risking their health to COVID or even more normal injuries, shouldn't there be safeguards protecting them and their educations? Bryce Turner died last year training for football; that's obviously an outlier, but it still must weigh heavily on the minds of the players.
Most college sports run a deficit in operating costs and are sustained by football and basketball revenues. We've lamented cuts to athletic programs and many boosters have worked to preserve them. Some of what #WeAreUnited is asking for will go specifically to non-revenue sports to help guarantee their longevity as well. If football players are trying to promote equity and protect the feasibility of other sports, shouldn't that be commended?
Why do we need to pay them? Why don't they leave? The XFL is starting up. There are semi pro leagues? Its not like they don't have choices if they want to get paid.
An important factor is also, to what degree is the NCAA (and.. in collusion with the NFL) a monopoly that stifles a viable professional alternative?
I'd be all for a minor league farm system in the NFL, similar to baseball. I probably wouldn't watch it, but that's me. I similarly don't watch the [insert sponsor] high school all american games. I think college football, ingrained as a national past time it is, would be just fine with the existence of such a league, and even better off with it (perhaps better parity, resetting it's purpose, assuaging that cognitive dissonance..)
From my purist, albeit willfully ignorant, perspective I would prefer college football not become that market. That's not to say it doesn't need some reform.. keep it amateur but fix whatever gaps exist regarding the basic needs and safety of it's participants. I think a *viable* free market alternative would have that mobilizing affect on the NCAA to reform.
An important factor is also, to what degree is the NCAA (and.. in collusion with the NFL) a monopoly that stifles a viable professional alternative?
I'd be all for a minor league farm system in the NFL, similar to baseball. I probably wouldn't watch it, but that's me. I similarly don't watch the [insert sponsor] high school all american games. I think college football, ingrained as a national past time it is, would be just fine with the existence of such a league, and even better off with it (perhaps better parity, resetting it's purpose, assuaging that cognitive dissonance..)
From my purist, albeit willfully ignorant, perspective I would prefer college football not become that market. That's not to say it doesn't need some reform.. keep it amateur but fix whatever gaps exist regarding the basic needs and safety of it's participants. I think a *viable* free market alternative would have that mobilizing affect on the NCAA to reform.
I don't think the NCAA colludes with the NFL. I actually believe the NFL loves college ball because the NFL doesn't have to foot the bill of a farm league and MANY more kids get a chance to improve and become NFL talent in college ball (with 119 teams) than would ever happen with a farm league. Personally I think the NCAA should include in every player scholarship contract that if they leave school before they graduate to go to the NFL then the NFL should pay a fraction of the salary back to the school. There are semi pro teams that serve as farm teams and with Duane Johnsons purchase of the XFL I think we will see more.
I hope that happens, where it's commonplace for some of the elite high school athletes to go directly to those leagues out of high school because its a good, transparent option for their wants and needs, rather than the alternative messy pseudo-amateurism paradigm of the haves and the have-nots in the NCAA today
What "profit"? Should the dozen plus sports who depend on football and basketball for their survival just go away? Should we only hire coaches who will work for minimum wage? Should all our athletes be offered only substandard facilities for their training? Name one university that makes a profit on their total sports program. Just one.
They are being compensated, but they're not being paid. But all that aside, the crux of the question is whether or not the compensation college football players receive is commensurate with the revenue they produce and the risk they accept. I don't see how it was in the past, and I REALLY don't see how it is if they're being asked to play during a pandemic.
Why should anyone receive an amount commensurate with revenue they produce? That's not how the world works. Even the NFL players who make millions don't have their contracts tied to revenue. If that was the standard then should Google and Facebook and Apple employees be entitled to significantly higher salaries? I agree with you about the pandemic issue.
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.
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?
Even if the season were cancelled, I think there's a mountain of evidence that players are closer to professional in the nature of their responsibilities (and the revenue they create) than amateur. But for me, what the pandemic has done is blow away that last little fig leaf of deniability or naivete somebody could bring into the debate.
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.
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.
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.
The 50% revenue distribution would be devastating for Olympic sports. As written, the demand reads "of each sport’s total conference revenue evenly among athletes in their respective sports."
Many of the Olympic sports run deficits with multi-million-dollar expenses on less than $1 million in revenue. They wouldn't be able to rely on or share in the revenues of more profitable "revenue" sports as they do now and would see their already-high expenses balloon.
I dont know if people actually do the math, I know I havent, but of the total revenue of around 1 billion a year the NCCA pays a significant portion back out to the colleges (I've casually seen different numbers but the lowest was 50%). So of whatever is remaining..how is it distributed to the ~450k student athletes? Does a 5* 3yr starter QB make as much as a unranked O lineman who plays a handful of games in 4 or 5 years? Or a sprinter? Tennis player? Does mens and womens sports change pay scales due to differences in revenue generated?
It's worth noting that the ~billion dollars of annual revenue for the NCAA doesn't touch on revenue paid to conferences and individual institutions. Total annual revenue sources for just college football is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 billion
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.
That's a pretty blithe way to wave off some very real concerns. Besides, I'd argue that players may feel that they are being forced to play football *in a pandemic,* or else risk angering their coaches.
I can agree with that. And I have no problem if they want to sit out and keep their year of eligibility.
I agree, but apparently that's not a popular opinion these days. It scares me when people make comparisons to slavery when talking about college sports...
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.
"Players would o where the would be paid the most."
They already do.
"Dynasties would be built on who is willing to pay the most for player salaries for a winning program."
They already are.
Here's the deal: I simply can't understand somebody who is OK with college coaches making huge salaries, but not OK with college athletes getting compensated for their direct labor,
Simple: the coaches are the best of the best. Just like NFL players, the best ones get paid the most. The coaches are not students. Also, coaches don't have much of a life outside coaching. I coached at the JC level for 4 years. I thought it was going to be a fun hobby. It was, but it was a hobby that took 50 hours a week, year round (yes, there is spring ball, offseason workouts to run, and lots and lots of film to watch) and it could have been 80+ hours if I wanted to commit to it. In any event, Coaches are professional and the best should get paid the most; the market dictates price. Like I said, if players want to get paid, there are options outside of college ball that they can pursue. Lastly, if you figure that Tuition, Books and Board cost between $50k to $100k nowadays, that's a pretty decent pay package. Like I said though, I would like to see stipends increased so the kids can buy clothes and fly home for holidays if they are from out of town.
A couple of more thoughts... What happens if a star player who is paid top dollar has an off year? Do you cut his salary? What happens if he loses his starting job? Can you cut his salary? Can you pay his replacement more money? How do you handle a kid who has a breakout year and then decides to transfer because he can get more money at another program? How do you set salary amounts? How do you do it without creating dissention on the team? When guys are a collective of paid players looking out for their own interests they cease to function as team in the trust sense of the word. When all kids are on competing the same level, sacrificing EQUALLY to succeed, that's when the greatest bonds of a real team are formed.
"What happens if a star player who is paid top dollar has an off year? Do you cut his salary? What happens if he loses his starting job? Can you cut his salary? Can you pay his replacement more money? How do you handle a kid who has a breakout year and then decides to transfer because he can get more money at another program? How do you set salary amounts? How do you do it without creating dissention on the team?"
If you were to ask me to prognosticate the likely end result of all this, I'd guess that the intial negotiating position (50% of revenue) gets negotiated down to a universal stipend and name-and-likeness right. I doubt these hypotheticals end up needing to get answered. But honestly, most of these questions have easy answers. Players already transfer to other programs for monetary reasons, whether under the table or because of increased future opportunity. Coaches already have to deal with dissention on a roster, and Pro leagues handle different salaries just fine.
I agree fully with both of your posts and have the same concerns. Anyone who thinks Cal will be better off in the world of professional college sports is really fantasizing. The traditional big name schools will dominate pro sports and pull away from the others.
"The traditional big name schools will dominate pro sports and pull away from the others."
Regarding this argument: That problem has already come to pass. Four teams (Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, and Ohio State) have combined for 17 college football playoff appearances, while the rest of the country has a total of 7.
I think it's two very different issues - what's good for Cal is mostly not the same as what's good for future student-athletes.
Yup. All of this might be AWFUL for Cal, because we're one of the few P5 institutions not drowning in money thanks to our own fiscal mistakes. But that shouldn't preclude us from recognizing and fixing an unfair system.
I heavily agree with rugbear, people also always focus on the two big revenue sports and ignore the rest. Who's getting paid there? I mean fairness means every student athlete should get something. But how do you determine what a golfer gets paid vs a swimmer? Who's paying for all this? So is this something that's good for a small number of student athletes, or all ~400,000 -500,000 athletes across all sports? Also youd have to wage adjust regularly, who determines that? Do you adjust for cost of living, even though on scholarship they dont pay rent?
This is also ignoring if you pay students outright, theyll just go to the biggest $$ schools (as rugbear said) and itll make it so MANY schools are uncompetitive. Which means less people will watch, and less revenue. It's hard enough to get people at pac12 games as is these days. Lol
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.
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.
If you go to the NCAA museum in Indianapolis, they claimed their origin as one that saved lives because the game of football was literally killing people due to "the wedge" (which was like the Mighty Ducks' 'Flying V'). Obviously, it's mission had changed quite a bit due to the vast increase in profits. Nonetheless, there is still room for an oversight organization even if college football becomes a hybrid amateur/professional organization. Should players be getting paid, it is not going to be a free-market system...there will be some kind of salary cap, max (if not uniform) salaries, etc.). Somebody will need to be an overwatch of all that.
Selling tickets to watch a game does not make the players professional. They sell tickets to high school football and basketball games.
I've stopped thinking of "professionalism" as a binary state, where one is either a professional or an amateur. Obviously most people are amateurs, and some are obviously clearly professionals, but in between there is a sliding scale of professionalism that ramps up as attention and money are paid to the sport. Most high school basketball tickets may be just supplementing the money necessary to outfit the team, pay coaches, support facilities, etc., but as school teams start generating significant revenue, that revenue starts to alter the business model of the whole enterprise, driving expectations for behavior that increasingly look like scaled-down versions of what we put on professional athletes.
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.
If we are talking about football and basketball at the Power 5 level, college athletics are already professional -- it just doesn't compensate the people who bring the most value to the process. The Alabama coaching staff collectively earns more than $15M per year -- even under the most generous estimates, that is several times the value of the scholarships, room, board, etc. given to the entire team on an annual basis. Coaches, administrators, NCAA officials, etc. should not be collectively making billions on the backs of players who are prohibited from receiving compensation for even just their own name and likeness. Setting the compensation issue aside, the hypocrisy of schools playing football while their students attend virtual classes for their own safety is just gross.
I can't say enough good things about college sports. I played basketball at a non-scholarship school before attending grad school at Cal, and it was an incredibly positive and important experience for me in terms of my development as a person, career, family and lifelong friendships. But what the NCAA and these schools are doing to players is wrong, and if this prompts change, then I'm all for it, even though it's unlikely they will get everything they are asking for. And, I'm very proud that Cal student-athletes are front and center on this effort. Kudos to those guys.
And that coaching staff that gets paid that much built a program that nets Alabama typically $50m+per year and because of that program the popularity of the University has grown and AP admits have grown from 15% to 70% of the student body. Tuition rates have gone up as well; that could be argued as good or bad, but more money means the University can offer more. As I said earlier, there are always two sides. Btw, there is a great story about how Bill Battle, the former AD, built the Alabama brand and the model of modern day big money football. Every school that wants to make money with a competitive program follows this model.
"And that coaching staff that gets paid that much built a program"
I don't particularly blame Alabama's coaches for profiting off of their own success to the maximum extent possible, but why do so many people get so angry when college athletes attempt to do the exact same thing?
Because college athletes aren't career professionals where market forces dictate pay levels. As I said earlier, if players want to get paid, there are options outside of college football that can get them paid and scouted for the NFL.
"options outside of college" -- Is that really true though? Aside from a handful of international players, has there even been a single NFL player in modern history who did not play a college sport at some point prior to their professional career?
I think this market inefficiency is the crux of the problem. Let the NCAA be amateur, but barriers to a *viable* professional option for some of these working aged young men need to be removed, and that starts with their partnership with the NFL (who actively engage in age discrimination nonetheless)
That another employer exists as an option for a laborer doesn't excuse unfair practices by a different employer.
First of all, the Universities are not employers of football players. Second, college football is not a monopoly, players have options. As long as a choice exists then players can choose to accept the terms of the college scholarship deal or go elsewhere. In the workforce if you feel you are in an unfair situation you have the ability to seek a new place of employment. It is no different here. Terms are offered. You can accept or go elsewhere.
As much as pure amateurism is the platonic ideal, it's unrealistic as long as individuals and institutions are massively profiting off the play of college players. That's pretty impossible to change. But if players are risking their health to COVID or even more normal injuries, shouldn't there be safeguards protecting them and their educations? Bryce Turner died last year training for football; that's obviously an outlier, but it still must weigh heavily on the minds of the players.
Most college sports run a deficit in operating costs and are sustained by football and basketball revenues. We've lamented cuts to athletic programs and many boosters have worked to preserve them. Some of what #WeAreUnited is asking for will go specifically to non-revenue sports to help guarantee their longevity as well. If football players are trying to promote equity and protect the feasibility of other sports, shouldn't that be commended?
Why do we need to pay them? Why don't they leave? The XFL is starting up. There are semi pro leagues? Its not like they don't have choices if they want to get paid.
An important factor is also, to what degree is the NCAA (and.. in collusion with the NFL) a monopoly that stifles a viable professional alternative?
I'd be all for a minor league farm system in the NFL, similar to baseball. I probably wouldn't watch it, but that's me. I similarly don't watch the [insert sponsor] high school all american games. I think college football, ingrained as a national past time it is, would be just fine with the existence of such a league, and even better off with it (perhaps better parity, resetting it's purpose, assuaging that cognitive dissonance..)
From my purist, albeit willfully ignorant, perspective I would prefer college football not become that market. That's not to say it doesn't need some reform.. keep it amateur but fix whatever gaps exist regarding the basic needs and safety of it's participants. I think a *viable* free market alternative would have that mobilizing affect on the NCAA to reform.
An important factor is also, to what degree is the NCAA (and.. in collusion with the NFL) a monopoly that stifles a viable professional alternative?
I'd be all for a minor league farm system in the NFL, similar to baseball. I probably wouldn't watch it, but that's me. I similarly don't watch the [insert sponsor] high school all american games. I think college football, ingrained as a national past time it is, would be just fine with the existence of such a league, and even better off with it (perhaps better parity, resetting it's purpose, assuaging that cognitive dissonance..)
From my purist, albeit willfully ignorant, perspective I would prefer college football not become that market. That's not to say it doesn't need some reform.. keep it amateur but fix whatever gaps exist regarding the basic needs and safety of it's participants. I think a *viable* free market alternative would have that mobilizing affect on the NCAA to reform.
I
I don't think the NCAA colludes with the NFL. I actually believe the NFL loves college ball because the NFL doesn't have to foot the bill of a farm league and MANY more kids get a chance to improve and become NFL talent in college ball (with 119 teams) than would ever happen with a farm league. Personally I think the NCAA should include in every player scholarship contract that if they leave school before they graduate to go to the NFL then the NFL should pay a fraction of the salary back to the school. There are semi pro teams that serve as farm teams and with Duane Johnsons purchase of the XFL I think we will see more.
I hope that happens, where it's commonplace for some of the elite high school athletes to go directly to those leagues out of high school because its a good, transparent option for their wants and needs, rather than the alternative messy pseudo-amateurism paradigm of the haves and the have-nots in the NCAA today
Why does anybody need to pay an employee who creates profit for a business owner?
What "profit"? Should the dozen plus sports who depend on football and basketball for their survival just go away? Should we only hire coaches who will work for minimum wage? Should all our athletes be offered only substandard facilities for their training? Name one university that makes a profit on their total sports program. Just one.
They are getting paid. The equivalent for their education, books and living package is typically between $50k t0 $100k per year.
They are being compensated, but they're not being paid. But all that aside, the crux of the question is whether or not the compensation college football players receive is commensurate with the revenue they produce and the risk they accept. I don't see how it was in the past, and I REALLY don't see how it is if they're being asked to play during a pandemic.
Why should anyone receive an amount commensurate with revenue they produce? That's not how the world works. Even the NFL players who make millions don't have their contracts tied to revenue. If that was the standard then should Google and Facebook and Apple employees be entitled to significantly higher salaries? I agree with you about the pandemic issue.